Am I the only one who finds the 60s and 70s the most aesthetic

>>2880670
>>>/k/
I do agree however desu senpai

>>2880670
Popping by to say I agree.

>>2880686
>Historical aircraft
>historical

File: 1465426448617.jpg (2MB, 2048x1328px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2048x1328px

Post 25 years and older planefus.
Mine is the EE Lightning, dat O/U engine arrangement, dat thicc tummy

Who /folland gnat/ here?
>cute
>killed sabres

File: e27ccb11e19ca344deb22a7e84543e4f.jpg (49KB, 900x599px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 900x599px

>Can't fly straight
>Can't dogfight
>Heavy as fuck
>American propaganda sells it as the second coming of God, so idiots can buy it

And despite all of that it's still one of the sexiest aircraft ever to grace the skies

File: article-2662730-05FB88190000044D-832_634x331.jpg (54KB, 634x331px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 634x331px

hell naw dude

File: rs11520_xp695-ee-lightning-f-3-raf-stmawgan-4th-august-1976.jpg (91KB, 1024x682px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 1024x682px

>>2880910
>EE Lightning
my anon

>>2880936
It also has an excellent combat record, despite the >noguns lmao meme

File: RAF-RN-Rolls-Royce-Pegasus-Harrier-Jump-Jet-Engine-Stater-Blade-255cm-Xmas-Gift-131357508248-2[1].jpg (69KB, 800x559px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 800x559px

>teleports behind you
>nothing personal Diego

File: Flechettes released by a German Taube - Copy.jpg (43KB, 436x300px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 436x300px

>>2880939

>>2880943
is that the sabre?

File: Clarence_Kelly_Johnson_1.jpg (1MB, 1838x2225px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1838x2225px

This guy comes up and slaps you're aerospace engineer in the ass, what do

File: MOx-FLECHETTES.jpg (58KB, 772x506px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 772x506px

>>2880946

>>2880943
Excellent combat record when sticking to non-dogfight roles. It was a shit dogfighter in the 60s and the pilots hated it with passion. That said it could indeed fly back home with a half a wing missing, so that does improve it's combat record

File: 625.jpg (270KB, 2008x1221px) Image search: [Google]

270KB, 2008x1221px

WWI was the perfect mix of past and future

File: Phantom-san.webm (3MB, 854x480px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 854x480px

>>2880949
No, its the Phantom.
>>2880956
>the pilots hated it with passion.
Source please, because I've heard the opposite.

>>2880959
I should clarify. The F-4 was a magnificent aircraft, but it was "hated" (if I can even use that word) as a dogfighter, it was never designed to be a dogfighter. It was a very fast very advanced aircraft with a "power-over-aerodynamics" attitude. It was made for shooting bombers down and in that role it was superb. You can see that in its weapons as well the Falcons and so on. Due to it's wing shape it had a stupendously large turning circle. So if your guns AIMs failed to take out the enemy in the initial pass you were in deep shit, but then again in a straight line it could outrun pretty much anything

anyone have the russian vs us air force meme

File: american airpower meme.jpg (752KB, 3300x2550px) Image search: [Google]

752KB, 3300x2550px

>>2881060
gotchu

File: 225px-Ed_Heinemann_aircraft_designer_c1955.jpg (12KB, 225x272px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 225x272px

>>2880953

File: 12568108_960066254079612_560248443_n.jpg (42KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 640x640px

>>2881003

To illustrate, the smaller is from an F-16 Falcon. The larger circle is from an F-4 Phantom. This is intended to demonstrate the minimum turning radius of both aircraft in comparison to each other. Also, while the F-4 technically has a higher top speed, the F-16 has better acceleration which is actually more important is most situations. The only area where the F-4 is definitely superior is in overall maximum payload that the plane is capable of carrying in terms of bombs. However, improvements to bombing accuracy make that essentially a non-issue as the F-16 would be able to hit more targets despite being able to carry fewer bombs.

>>2881098
Couldn't the F-4 carry the same targetting pods and weapons as the F-16?
Considering some nations like S Korea and Turkey still fly Phantoms, surely they've been through some type of modernization program.

>>2881116

Well yeah, it is entirely possible in most cases to take an older aircraft and upgrade its avionics, mainly by attaching extra sensors onto the plane as pods. Hell, the A-10's basically started off on the WW2 level in terms of electronic systems and they're now able to use modern smart munitions and data-links and such. My comment was more relation to the Vietnam war. At that point in time, it was still pretty hard to hit anything with accuracy from the air unless you were flying very low to the ground.

>>2881214
I was referring to your comment about the F-16 vs F-4. If I recall, the F-16 as it started out, was a lightweight fighter with barely any air to ground capability, and it was only later on throughout the 80's and 90's that they introduced the LANTIRN pods and other sensors and smart munitions. So technically, if you compared an original F-16A with an F-4G, the Phantom would win out on ground attack capability.

File: 1445588054400.jpg (153KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 640x480px

>>2881236

>If I recall, the F-16 as it started out, was a lightweight fighter with barely any air to ground capability

That was the original concept but the design went through some important changes before it was approved for mass production. The new plane needed to be able to replace the F-4 in the fighter-bomber role and it obviously couldn't have done that without at least some air-to-ground capability. There was no need to introduce another purely air-to-air fighter because the F-15 already filled that role.

>>2881070
B-but those p-planes weren't flown by Soviets...m-muh export models!

>>2881293
Arabs shouldn't count as pilots.

>>2881397
but sand people with american planes did bretty gud

see; iranians with their tomcats

>>2881404
Arabs=/= iranians

Take a look at saudi performance

>>2881293
they were export models.

>>2880910
>>2880941
Supercruised before it was a thing, capable of outclimbing an F-15, and manoeuvred better than any other fighter of the same period. Shame about the limited hardpoints and weak radar, though.

File: swedish_ufo_interception_by_alfredsson.jpg (390KB, 1200x720px) Image search: [Google]

390KB, 1200x720px

>>2880670

>Psst......nothing personnel.......ET

File: Hunter_NTM2009_0862_800.jpg (51KB, 800x534px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 800x534px

Unnhhhhh..........

File: img001.jpg (962KB, 4400x3400px) Image search: [Google]

962KB, 4400x3400px

Oh, is this the planefag thread?
Here's some stuff I've collected, mostly military aviation and related pdf's.
>http://www.mediafire.com/file/jb6twznzei5ttom/Illustrated_Guide_to_Modern_Fighters%2C_Bill_Gunston_2.zip

>http://www.mediafire.com/file/y686n4t8c7kbzte/AnX-29StoryV3.pdf

>http://www.mediafire.com/file/vx7l1kyhrr31v4m/Air-to-Air-Report-.pdf

>http://www.mediafire.com/file/ysjx9khpwbvg5vc/Strike_Fighters_air_to_air.pdf

>http://www.mediafire.com/file/bbhhi6hypk06xcq/Miniature_Uav_And_Future_Electronic_Warfare.pdf

>http://www.mediafire.com/file/2li1alrioe81hxa/Combat_System_Sensors.pdf

>>2881819

>No including "Revolt of the Majors."

You're not a real plane-fag until you've read it.

https://etd.auburn.edu/bitstream/handle/10415/595/MICHEL_III_55.pdf

File: AIA2005_Seidel_F_111_dump_and_burn_Tag.jpg (97KB, 900x603px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 900x603px

Aardvark is love
Aardvark is life

File: Screenshot 2017-05-29 at 6.55.03 PM.png (254KB, 511x402px) Image search: [Google]

254KB, 511x402px

fucking reagan man

File: AIM-9X nozzle.jpg (240KB, 912x606px) Image search: [Google]

240KB, 912x606px

This missile comes up to you in the bar and slaps you're planefu in the ass, what do

Keep in mind he's an all-aspect, HOBS capable IR tracking missile

>>2880670
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sh-9uZjg1Tg

A

V U L C A N

R

O

File: 1491714590737.jpg (416KB, 1200x799px) Image search: [Google]

416KB, 1200x799px

>>2882026
UNNF

THICKER

File: BAC TSR.2.jpg (324KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

324KB, 1200x800px

I TRIED SO HARD
AND GOT SO FAR

>>2881956
beat me to it. Oh, what could have been. The F-5 deserved to evolve, and this was so meant to be. The most beautiful aircraft ever produced imho

File: F16Falcon.jpg (362KB, 1024x682px) Image search: [Google]

362KB, 1024x682px

>>2882212
*blocks your path*

>>2881965
>AIM-9 and AIM-7 missiles are going to be used until 2050
feels good man

>>2882212

Evolving the F-5 kills the entire point of the F-5.

File: 1200px-Curtis_LeMay_(USAF).jpg (303KB, 1200x1371px) Image search: [Google]

303KB, 1200x1371px

>>2882219

*blocks your funding*

Not one dollar for a non-bomber.

File: Screenshot 2017-05-29 at 8.15.36 PM.png (430KB, 825x491px) Image search: [Google]

430KB, 825x491px

>>2882219
DELET THIS

File: B-61_bomb.jpg (171KB, 600x263px) Image search: [Google]

171KB, 600x263px

>>2882235
Walah

File: Screenshot 2017-05-29 at 8.18.26 PM.png (595KB, 877x512px) Image search: [Google]

595KB, 877x512px

>>2882235
*destroys your b29s and makes you too scared to use your b36's*

File: f-86-sabre.jpg (80KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 1024x768px

>>2882243
heh not so fast...kiddo

File: 1484022023417.jpg (102KB, 560x403px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 560x403px

>>2880670
For prop planes, nothing will ever beat late war warplanes, especially anything with bare aluminum camo

However, I wholeheartedly think that modern Gen 5 fighters are the best looking warplanes of them all

File: Northrop-P530-Cobra.jpg (55KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 800x600px

>>2882212
>The F-5 deserved to evolve
Oh but anon it did.

File: An_F-A-18C_Hornet_launches_from_the_flight_deck_of_the_conventionally_powered_aircraft_carrier.jpg (309KB, 2100x1391px) Image search: [Google]

309KB, 2100x1391px

>>2882311

It kept going and hasn't stopped yet.

File: F-35 lewdly pops countermeasures.webm (454KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

454KB, 1280x720px

>>2882310
The F-35 has grown on me.

File: Mig_17-A_Fighter_Jet.jpg (95KB, 1000x667px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 1000x667px

AESTHETICS

File: Dassault Mirage 4000 Jet Fighter Aircraft.jpg (124KB, 1500x1111px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 1500x1111px

>>2882325
Wrong image, mon ami

File: 1495535462743.png (66KB, 235x250px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 235x250px

>>2881293
>posts solid argument as if it was a meme

Yeah...

File: chengdu_j-20_fighter.gif (123KB, 850x567px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 850x567px

Oh, it's beautiful

File: img-shirai-jasdf-uas-1.jpg (861KB, 2979x2500px) Image search: [Google]

861KB, 2979x2500px

Why do Japs have the best paint jobs?

File: hanksgm.jpg (44KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 400x400px

>>2882237

th-the perfection... anon I can't take it

File: GWH F-15 92-8068-02 (1) .jpg (72KB, 960x639px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 960x639px

And one more

File: 553cb6fdf5abe013de08e606a5ee30c6.jpg (42KB, 800x533px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 800x533px

Ok ok, just two more

>>2882314
actually I thought the FA-18 was based off of the F-16 frame, not trying to debate I just could have sworn I remember that from one of my scores of military aviation encyclopedias

File: mustnotfap.jpg (69KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 400x300px

>>2881956
>>2882237
>>2882252
>>2882356
>>2882494
>>2882500
>>2882514
>>2882518
>>2882521

File: YF-16.jpg (97KB, 1024x705px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 1024x705px

>>2882524
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_YF-17

>>2882524
No- F-18 was an outgrowth of the YF-17.

>>2882540
>>2882542

smdh I knew that jesus time for bed thank you fellow air heads

>>2880736
This is bullshit. Just because something was created in the past doesn't mean it belongs on /his/, otherwise we'd be discussing "historical" video games, music, movies, and all the other shit that we have boards for.

File: 1C0BFAC1.png (597KB, 1380x820px) Image search: [Google]

597KB, 1380x820px

>>2882567
But we do discuss all that shit.

>>2882567
>its another "/his/ is only for historical events" autist
bet you shitpost the rare prehistoric threads too, you incredible goober

>>2882576
/his/ is for historical events and (unfortunately) humanities. If you want to discuss military aircraft or 1980s anime, you should go to /k/ or /a/.

File: 1492530735554.jpg (20KB, 604x279px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 604x279px

>>2882584
>you should go to /k/ or /a/.
make me
>1980's anime
literally what

>>2882591
>literally what
25 year rule. The idiotic argument you're using would mean that anything that was created before May 30th 1992 would be fair game for discussion on /his/. This is not the case because /his/ is for historical figures and events, not media or military equipment.

>>2882595
says who, the incredibly vague, self contradicting and poorly written sticky which is never enforced?
please suckstart a shotgun you geek, we have threads on historical weaponry and armor all the time.

>>2882601
It's pretty clear, if you can read English.

>All images and discussion should pertain to the humanities: history, philosophy, religion, law, classical artwork, archeology, anthropology, ancient languages, etc.

You can suck my cock before you leave though.

>>2882606
>etc
including historical items and paraphernalia so you can suck MY dick and choke on it, faggot.

>>2882611
You just got baited by me son. You are forever and ever my bitch. If there was a history book of bitches you would be in it and I would be glorified as your master. And no take backs. You lose. Trolled. Bow and kiss the ring motherfucker.

>>2880957
Actually that would be the mig 21.

>>2881404
>>2881450
explain the pakis then
>top of the line american hardware every time
>lose to planes that were designed for acrobatics

Pakis were directly trained by americans themselves.

File: folland gnat.jpg (293KB, 1280x1024px) Image search: [Google]

293KB, 1280x1024px

>*glomps your f-86*

File: n8umjWj.png (3KB, 698x1284px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 698x1284px

>>2882567
>>2882584
>>2882595
>>2882606
>>2882626

You're complaining about a thread people are enjoying? Why not turn your unwarranted rage toward a thread that deserves it like some idiotic /pol/ thread? Fuck off.

File: 1484605433767.jpg (293KB, 983x881px) Image search: [Google]

293KB, 983x881px

>>2882655
Folland Gnat a CUTE

>>2882514
This is a 2nd-3rd gen plane page. 4-5th gen ugly shitboxes not allowed.

File: F-15 Eagle.png (390KB, 4688x3116px) Image search: [Google]

390KB, 4688x3116px

>>2882698
>Eagle
>ugly shitbox
delet this

>>2882310
>However, I wholeheartedly think that modern Gen 5 fighters are the best looking warplanes of them all
Shit taste famalam. 3rd gen best gen

File: Northrop YF-23 013.jpg (71KB, 1162x705px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 1162x705px

>>2882721
"no"

>>2880939
Right-o, old chap! This, right here!

File: mig29.jpg (69KB, 1088x658px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 1088x658px

sexiest bird flying by

File: 1465462029.jpg (146KB, 1200x812px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 1200x812px

>>2882703
It's the ugliest 4 gen. However Flankers are pure curvy sex.

File: 1480725510282.png (436KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

436KB, 1280x720px

>>2882738
>F-15
>ugly
>posts "lol broken neck" plane as a superior example
motherffucker i am warning you

>>2882738
Double rudders, canards, and lifting body fuselages ruined the aesthetics of 4th gen aircraft.

File: HIMAT.jpg (48KB, 516x324px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 516x324px

>>2882767
>Double rudders, canards, and lifting body fuselages ruined the aesthetics of 4th gen aircraft.
how can you be so wrong.
cigar bodies, non area ruled airframes and powerplants that can't push an aircraft past mach 1 are gay btw

File: yak28p72bb_1.jpg (48KB, 700x467px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 700x467px

>>2882770
Pure sleekness trumps any alienesque design feature. 2-3rd gen aircraft have the perfect combination between conventional beauty, sleekness and deiselpunk brute force.

>>2882684
That image doesn't apply to me. I troll because watching autists fight against positions I don't actually hold gives me a boner. And you make it so damn easy. Just keep feeding me please.

File: YF23 roll.webm (2MB, 926x702px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 926x702px

>>2882786
This isn't sleek to you?

File: F-15C frontal.jpg (279KB, 3191x2124px) Image search: [Google]

279KB, 3191x2124px

This is the ideal air superiority plane. You may not like it, but this is what peak performance looks like.

>>2882812
Hi /simg/, no, F-15 is ugly and will forever be.

>>2880943
>excellent combat record
dropping napalm isn't that hard

>>2882219
planes shouldn't get me ha-

File: maxresdefault.jpg (147KB, 2967x1440px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 2967x1440px

All this thread and no BRRRRRRRRRT

File: CASA_C-101EB_Aviojet.jpg (246KB, 1280x851px) Image search: [Google]

246KB, 1280x851px

any pilots around?
I had a lot of fun with this qt back in training

>>2881003
>it's wing shape it had a stupendously large turning circle.

Which means exactly jack and shit in a dogfight when you can use your speed and power advantage to fight in the vertical the way F4 pilots were trained to do.

File: Su-47-Over-Niagara-Falls-520x390.jpg (80KB, 520x390px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 520x390px

Did someone say aesthetics?

File: maxresdefault.jpg (97KB, 1280x721px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 1280x721px

Hey, you might not like it, but THIS is what a trillion dollars looks like!

File: SR-71A_head-on_NASA_Dryden.jpg (989KB, 2040x1331px) Image search: [Google]

989KB, 2040x1331px

>>2880670
>Whole thread
>No one posts this
Jesus christ, the most goth plane of all time:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZScVFtKa-f8

File: 1ec032c57279b470eee63b6a263845fe.jpg (2MB, 2272x1704px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2272x1704px

this thread needs a Fiat

>>2883843

>down syndrome: the plane

File: republic f-105 thunderchief vietnam.jpg (79KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 1024x683px

>fixin' to fuck with 'em, what's yer target

File: tumblr_noj4rxxhtV1qgggino1_500.jpg (48KB, 500x249px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 500x249px

best looking plane of the Vietnam war, prove me wrong

>protip: you can't

File: phantom combat record vietnam.png (29KB, 433x458px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 433x458px

>>2883101
it is when there's a trillion SAM sites fixing to fuck your shit up

>>2881804
It looks like a cute dragon

>>2883940
Literally the gottagofast of planes.

>>2883744
Does it count if I want to be a pilot and am currently trying to make my dream come true?

>>2884913
yes, please elaborate

>>2880670
>maximum speed
>external hardpoints
What did they mean by this?

>>2885280
>Like planes
>Like America
>Doing afrotc and hoping I get a rated slot

>>2881098
Is the turn even relevant in modern air combat? I've seen countless quotations from WW2 aces, American, German and British who all say that the tight turn as an offensive tactic died in WW1 already and that turning with your opponent was generally ill-advised, making it primarily a defensive tactic.

>>2885932
>Is the turn even relevant in modern air combat?
Not really, its a nice thing to be able to do though.

Thrust vectoring is a major meme by the way, F-22 pilots have said they'd rather have more thrust over supermanuevrability.

>>2885932
>Is the turn even relevant in modern air combat?

Not really, no.

You can turn to avoid a missile lock, but flat turns bleed energy, so it's best to stick with vertical maneuvering that either trades speed for altitude to convert back into speed, or to simply trade altitude for speed to get the fuck out of dodge.

The only time I can see using a flat turn is when it's the only advantage your bird has over your foe, but if they don't take the bait, follow, and bleed off speed, you're pretty much fucked.

>>2886000
>>2885939
>>2885932
You all forget the most important consideration of fighter design: Airshow performance.

File: 1492528075326.jpg (196KB, 808x1000px) Image search: [Google]

196KB, 808x1000px

The 60's had some crazy ideas.

>>2882494
>j-20
>its actually a j-10 and not even a j-10b
?

Patrician tier:
>TU-22M
>Su-22

File: SEPECAT jaguars.jpg (354KB, 1600x1186px) Image search: [Google]

354KB, 1600x1186px

>>2887386
SEPECAT Jaguar

File: Screen Shot 2017-05-30 at 10.26.37 PM.png (439KB, 637x581px) Image search: [Google]

439KB, 637x581px

>>2880910
>>2887391
>overwing hardpoints
my very niche fetish right there

File: A12 line up.jpg (345KB, 1901x1072px) Image search: [Google]

345KB, 1901x1072px

Fasten your seatbelts.

File: wp_21+68 F-104G JaboG 33_Schwarz.jpg (257KB, 2283x1518px) Image search: [Google]

257KB, 2283x1518px

>>2887556
Starfighter a CUTE

File: Lockheed F-104 Starfighter.jpg (125KB, 1024x678px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 1024x678px

>>2887560
Don't have to convince me

File: 47-2.png (432KB, 900x2442px) Image search: [Google]

432KB, 900x2442px

>>2881956

File: BLUE LION.webm (3MB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 640x480px

>>2887613
please do not bully

>>2887613

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BDgQwlfHII

The F-20 had just about the coolest advertising for a jet fighter that you can imagine, complete with a personal endorsement from Chuck Yeager.

File: world-aircraft-postcards-series-british-airways-concorde-c-1980s.jpg (159KB, 1024x717px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 1024x717px

>>2880670
>implying that military aircraft of any era can compete with this civilian babe

Concorde is literally the most beautiful machine ever made

File: CF-101 Voodoo.jpg (83KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 800x600px

V O O D O O
O
O
D
O
O

File: electric voodoo.jpg (439KB, 3431x2272px) Image search: [Google]

439KB, 3431x2272px

>>2890616
ELECTRIC
AVENUE

File: EF-101B-1.jpg (69KB, 1024x568px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 1024x568px

>>2890629
>that filename
>not electric voodaloo

File: arrow.jpg (40KB, 800x450px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 800x450px

>>2890616
>>2890629
>>2890639

Goodnight, sweet prince.

>>2890686
Meme plane.

File: avro_arrow.jpg (375KB, 1200x761px) Image search: [Google]

375KB, 1200x761px

>>2890686

File: delicious canadian tears.jpg (165KB, 1280x1016px) Image search: [Google]

165KB, 1280x1016px

>>2890686
It's a meme plane outclassed by the F-106 and designed for an obsolete doctrine.

File: retro cf18 livery.jpg (2MB, 4928x2958px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4928x2958px

>>2890740
d-delet this

File: canberra.jpg (115KB, 1024x676px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 1024x676px

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nyav1WBettg

"Jesus Christ you oughta see all those fuckers!"

File: 53332e7418f5f.jpg (91KB, 816x880px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 816x880px

>>2883843

File: 20150610_111618.jpg (2MB, 3264x1836px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x1836px

>>2891337
goddamn I love the canberra. Must have been hell for the navigators, though.

>pic related is where they sit

>>2887560
> the flying coffin
> the widowmaker

>>2882243
MiG 17s are made for sex

File: bansight-2.jpg (66KB, 600x584px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 600x584px

>>2891566
Surely worse was the bombardier position lying prone in the perspex nosecone craw space.

File: 8bde7f91cde4079dddaef1141dda7f29.jpg (176KB, 500x764px) Image search: [Google]

176KB, 500x764px

>>2891819
And surely worse than this was the PR.9 with its navigator having barely any view all and entering and exiting via the nosecone.

File: 20150610_111622.jpg (765KB, 3264x1836px) Image search: [Google]

765KB, 3264x1836px

>>2891819
I was going to make some comment about how the Brit Canberras at least had space for the navigator to move around, but then I realized they put three men in them instead of the two that USAF RB-57As had. What the fuck.

>Pic related is the only window the navigator has on an RB-57A.

File: Fighter_Airplane_458937.jpg (360KB, 2048x1366px) Image search: [Google]

360KB, 2048x1366px

Some gorgeous planes came outta that era, no doubt there

>>2883843
wish this had been built
>>2882735
goat soviet/russian jet

File: x29 .jpg (73KB, 1041x816px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 1041x816px

>>2891925
there's a reason why basically no one has made a FSW fighter aircraft.

>>2891952
>there's a reason
There's tons of reasons, actually.
>aeroelastic divergence
>requires very unstable design to get the most out of it
>shit for area ruling
>shit for stealth
>marginal benefit for agility
>bigger selling points - wingtips not stalling - can largely be attained by messing with twist distributions on conventional wings

60s-70s were time for experiments due to increased budgets.

The current gen aircraft and the next gen aircraft completely outclass anything from those periods of time. Drone aircraft will only get more advanced as time goes.

File: 2718494.jpg (263KB, 1200x812px) Image search: [Google]

263KB, 1200x812px

>>2891891
Fucking gutted we retired them. By the way out air force consisting of about 2 active aircraft has some sick military photographers

File: 2581329.jpg (186KB, 1024x695px) Image search: [Google]

186KB, 1024x695px

>>2893548

>>2882569
Yes lets discuss call of duty infinite warfare, after all the game was made in the past.

>>2893735
Oh look, an actual, literal retard.

File: hue.jpg (31KB, 378x295px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 378x295px

>>2880957
>mfw the red baron has a spurdo blane :DDDD

File: b58.jpg (157KB, 1280x1002px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 1280x1002px

>>2896076
ebin :DDD

>>2882252
An air museum I volunteered at used to have an F86H but they donated to a shitty memorial that gets hazed every other week...
Feels bad man

>>2884018
Look up A33 desu

>>2882484

I don't think so, Tim

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Rimon_20

>>2882792
How did the Raptor win the JF program against this?

File: YF23.webm (2MB, 930x704px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 930x704px

>>2898577
The YF-23 had significant structural support issues relating to the internal weapons bays, the engines it was supposed to use were experiencing difficulties, meaning they had to use the F119's developed for the Raptor, there was barely any difference in stealth, and it could not use its weapon bays at the ime of the tests, while the YF-22 could.
The YF-22 was also more manuevrable and just as fast.

>>2898595
But in muh pseudo mecha LN the YF-23 wiped the floor with Craptors, are you telling me my life has been a lie?

File: raptor upskirt.webm (417KB, 600x338px) Image search: [Google]

417KB, 600x338px

>>2898611
Yes.

Same thing happened with the JSF program, the X-32 was just not in a finished state compared to the X-35.
There were other issues and the X-32 in general was a piece of shit, unlike the YF-23 which was comparable in some aspects to the YF-22, but in general, the DoD likes to choose whatever's just as good, but also ready to use.

File: SAAB_aircraft.webm (728KB, 854x480px) Image search: [Google]

728KB, 854x480px

Why are the swedes so underrated when it comes to aircraft design?

File: [Sweden Intensifies].jpg (3MB, 2307x1538px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2307x1538px

>>2900105
Because their aircraft never really saw any combat service. Their last plane to see a combat deployment was the Tunnan in the Congo, IIRC.

File: F-106_launching_AIR-1_Genie.jpg (1MB, 3000x2007px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3000x2007px

>>2880670
The period just after WW2 had an absolute explosion of new aircraft technology. The period from about 1945 to 1975 is probably my favorite in aviation history.

>>2881819
Thanks for the links.

>>2896831
we could go and have a look at the the face fucking the Amerisharts received in 'Nam couldn't we?

>>2896831
we could go and have a look at the the face f*cking the Amerisharts received in 'Nam couldn't we?

>>2903251
>>2903255
>lose to Soviet-operated SAMs because of ROE limitations set by CiC
>this is evidence of a better VPAF and that the MiG-21 being superior to the F-4 despite Operation Bolo blowing the VPAF the fuck out
This is the part where you cite Vietnamese interceptor aces against slow fighter-bombers like the F-105 Thunderchief during Rolling Thunder, right? Fuck off, you don't know what you're talking about.

>>2903295
>358 F-4 combat losses
>10.1% of F-4 shot down were due to Migs
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/c016682.pdf
Basically all F-4 kills in Vietnam were from Mig-21's. In the Initial encounters the US suffered heavy losses and had to develop their tactics to counter them. In the end I believe that the Mig-21 shot down 56 Aircraft and 60 Mig-21's were shot down in return.
Cherry picking examples of Migs getting loads of kills or American Planes getting loads of kills is dumb. The planes are completely different and specialise in different things.
http://survincity.com/2013/01/mig-21-against-the-phantom/

>>2898553
Cringe.

>>2903410
>http://survincity.com/2013/01/mig-21-against-the-phantom/
Not him, but that is a blog on a Belarussian site written in English through what appears to be Google translate. Your other source doesn't specify what kind of MiG shot down the plane, only that a MiG did so I don't know what part of your ass you pulled "all kills in Vietnam were from MiG-21's" from, but you can go ahead and shove it back up there.

File: post-68-1219248982.jpg (91KB, 1511x1234px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 1511x1234px

>MiG-21s have been downed by B-52s more times than they've shot them down
How do slavs live with the shame?

>>2903458
Yeah, the Fulcrum really was all hype and no substance.