Who made the most aesthetic aircraft and why was it Britain?

File: image.jpg (404KB, 2000x1327px) Image search: [Google]

404KB, 2000x1327px

>>32990896
last i checked the A-10 isnt a Bong plane

>>32990931
I don't see an A10 in that picture

>>32990931
The A-10 is cool, but it ain't pretty.

We had to do something good before we burned out. Now we make nothing.

File: uuvjj2jibz2cmkab4zcv.jpg (378KB, 2400x1895px) Image search: [Google]

378KB, 2400x1895px

ya'll niggas blind

>>32990896
the victor is the best looking, in my opinion.

File: Vulcan.jpg (24KB, 615x409px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 615x409px

>>32990896

Missed one.

>inb4 people post pictures of the P51 with its ugly potbelly

File: Republic_P-47N_Thunderbolt_in_flight.jpg (10KB, 300x235px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 300x235px

Ahem...

>>32991101
looks shit

File: 9fb583a4aa86894491386472c55d458d.jpg (182KB, 1024x695px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 1024x695px

>>32991101

File: Yakovlev_Yak-130.jpg (455KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

455KB, 1200x800px

Aхeм

File: bestfriends.jpg (101KB, 876x500px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 876x500px

Best plane coming tru...

>>32991141
>F15
>not F14

File: G70hMMS.jpg (214KB, 1160x1336px) Image search: [Google]

214KB, 1160x1336px

>>32990896
is this a fucking joke? Britain is a strong contender for most unaesthetic aircraft

the real answer is always going to be the USA or Russia depending on your taste preference

>>32990896
>Concorde

Unff

>>32991147
got to say, the gun in the propeller was smart

File: a4b228857fbbbf6119cbfa5d6caf98c3.jpg (72KB, 736x490px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 736x490px

>>32991141
>>32991147
Get that ugly shit off this thread.

>>32991144
what is an proportions?

>>32991145
Gotta be honest, badass aircraft, but we still do badass better (pic related)

File: taifun.jpg (151KB, 1000x679px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 1000x679px

>tfw you planefu never gets any recognition

>>32990896

Lol, no.

File: airplane-wallpaper-22.jpg (382KB, 1920x1200px) Image search: [Google]

382KB, 1920x1200px

>>32991153

>>32991154
Yet to see an aesthetic american aircraft

>>32990896
It is Britain, why was this not assumed?

File: su-17-istrebitel-bomaioi-02.jpg (41KB, 600x380px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 600x380px

According to all known laws of aviation, there is no way that a SU17 should be able to fly. Its wings are too small to get its fat little body off the ground. The SU17, of course, flies anyways. Because SU17 don't care what humans think is impossible.

>>32990896
>aesthetic aircraft
>britain

Kek, nice oxymoron. You brit fags are funny

>le posting because it's American but still looks like an ugly plane

Atleast contribute if you refute the claim.

File: e3dcdc52b7ce6e050b0bf69fc47dfa0c.jpg (62KB, 736x494px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 736x494px

>>32991026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WO23WBji_Z0

>>32990896
Brits were gods at aircraft design.

>>32990931
ass

>>32991026
ok

>>32991101
utter ass

>>32991141
ass

>>32991144
ass

>>32991147
ok

>>32991151
nice

>>32991154
real ass

>>32991163
ass

>>32991164
ok

>>32991165
nice

>>32991180
ass

This was meant to be a thread with decent looking aircraft in, not an ass thread.

File: MKXXII.jpg (70KB, 850x537px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 850x537px

>>32991154
It's like comparing new and old cars.
You can't. WW2 planes like the Spitfire have that old beauty that new just can't reach.

It's like comparing oldtimers to modern hyper cars.

>>32991154
Ah i see generic design number 162 and 173 are doing very well.

>>32991057
Real planes have curves

File: 623ae85df0830428e17d3a9d7c5c858a.jpg (425KB, 1200x812px) Image search: [Google]

425KB, 1200x812px

If you amifags insist on replying at least use good-looking examples instead of the putrid lookings F-15

File: F16.jpg (77KB, 970x612px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 970x612px

If we're talking US fighters, there is only one contender.

File: IMG_0163.gif (48KB, 2034x1491px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 2034x1491px

>>32991209
your opinions are objectively wrong and you should feel bad

>>32991243
but F-15 is one of the better looking american planes

F-18 on the other hand...

File: airplane-wallpaper-13.jpg (364KB, 1920x1200px) Image search: [Google]

364KB, 1920x1200px

get fukt nigga bitch

>>32991154
>the real answer is always going to be the USA or Russia depending on your taste preference

>"Which country has the biggest faggots and isn't Russia?"
Oh hey, you're right.

File: F-14A_VF-21_landing_on_USS_Carl_Vinson_(CVN-70)_1984.jpg (220KB, 1538x1068px) Image search: [Google]

220KB, 1538x1068px

>>32991169
Grumman most A E S T H I T I C

File: 1416333379736.jpg (197KB, 700x400px) Image search: [Google]

197KB, 700x400px

choose your destiny

File: 794a5f38a03540d426aa91be61cd7af9.jpg (264KB, 1152x780px) Image search: [Google]

264KB, 1152x780px

>Britshit thread
>no HP Victor

>>32991330 see >>32991036

File: Raf_victor_in_1961_arp.jpg (2MB, 1918x1297px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1918x1297px

>>32991335
But you didn't post a picture anon

>>32991343
thats fair. it is a lovely plane, both visualy and flight wise

>>32991151
The closest thing anyone has ever flown (in the white world, at least, there are a couple black birds that might have it beat) to something out of a Gerry Anderson show.

The XB-70 was like an IRL Fireflash.

>>32991330
>>32991335
>>32991343
Am I the only Brit who doesn't like the Victor? Vulcan>Victor>Valient

>>32990896
>Concorde
HNNNNNNGGH JUST FUCKING KILL ME
The world wasn't ready for her. Secretly the best girl

File: Rafale.jpg (93KB, 1600x1065px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 1600x1065px

>Implying
Flying sex coming through

File: 1486718228829.jpg (51KB, 552x442px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 552x442px

>>32991165

>>32991365
gb2pakistan

>>32991228
the bat looks like it's sleeping on the grass.

>>32990896
Funny how the British see the Concorde as the epitome of British aeronautical engineering, while the French see it as the epitome of French aeronautical engineering.

File: Draken_05.jpg (793KB, 3543x2353px) Image search: [Google]

793KB, 3543x2353px

ahem

>>32992020
It was a joint effort wasn't it?

>>32992138

Yes, but both nations were the leading partner.

File: 1473688114556.png (9KB, 684x597px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 684x597px

>>32992030
The first flight
>1955

Dude, this was a revelation in his time...
Fucking spaceship, motherfucking Starwars man!

Often I have sexual fantasies associated with this kind birds of prey...

File: image.png (138KB, 572x381px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 572x381px

>>32990896
Whaaat?! No Vulcan?

File: sukhoi_su_34_blue_background-1920x1080.jpg (219KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

219KB, 1920x1080px

BEST GIRL

>>32990896
>Who made the most aesthetic aircraft?
America. F-22 if not, then the F-14.

File: 23456785436.jpg (25KB, 980x490px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 980x490px

Literal ayy lmao technology

>>32991268
True beauty

File: F15_ACTIVE.jpg (894KB, 3000x2347px) Image search: [Google]

894KB, 3000x2347px

canards

>>32992732
*throws up*

File: 1_FW_F-22_Raptor_participates_in_Red_Flag.jpg (498KB, 2100x1357px) Image search: [Google]

498KB, 2100x1357px

>>32992919
How dare.

File: US_Navy_040925-N-0295M-046_An_F-14D_Tomcat_conducts_a_high-speed_pass.jpg (2MB, 3000x2400px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3000x2400px

>>32992919
Doesn't get much more AESTHETIC than vaping.

File: F-14_breaks_the_sound_barrier.jpg (246KB, 1162x742px) Image search: [Google]

246KB, 1162x742px

>>32993019

File: Lockheed_XF_104.jpg (1MB, 1800x1187px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1800x1187px

Everyone knows that all Aesthetic aircraft come out of the Sothern California Desert.

Y'all have to admit, polished aluminum over a desert while braking record after record in countless X-planes and fighters, is very fucking aesthetic.

Too bad we'll never be able to live that.

>>32991144
>yak130
>nobody cares about the M346
Why?

File: csm_lightning-014_3e2e97da09.jpg (157KB, 1626x1080px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 1626x1080px

>>32990896
As an American, I've no problem saying that the Spitfire is one of if not the best looking fighter of all time. It has really great lines.

Now the p-38 on the other hand, has always had a borderline ugly sort of debonair quality about it that's hard to find unappealing.

File: wp_63-13243 F-104G Luke DM.jpg (159KB, 1750x1167px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 1750x1167px

>>32993186
I think this is the Nevada desert, not sure.
Still pretty nice.

File: 1423809593303.jpg (1009KB, 3030x2403px) Image search: [Google]

1009KB, 3030x2403px

>>32993186

File: Chuck_Yeager_in_NF_104.jpg (478KB, 2872x2259px) Image search: [Google]

478KB, 2872x2259px

>>32993186
Good ol chuck

File: Lockheed_XF_104__SN_53_7786__the_first_XF_104__on_Rogers_Dry_Lake_060928_F_1234S_002.jpg (166KB, 1800x1088px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 1800x1088px

>>32993186
I seem to have a lot of 104 pics.

>>32990896
>EE Canberra has a retarded bulge cockpit
>Martin Canberra has an actual cockpit

Not to mention the improvements to basically every other system. Brit "engineers" are literally only good for doing the basic groundwork.

File: Top_Test_Pilots_COMMENT_1958_COMMENT.jpg (184KB, 813x1000px) Image search: [Google]

184KB, 813x1000px

>>32993186

>>32991267

:0

File: 888559501d7139ae630c1269a855b97b.jpg (46KB, 564x423px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 564x423px

>>32993186

File: 78d16f01f734140a4707b1c7722f8aff.jpg (73KB, 736x552px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 736x552px

>>32993186
.

File: f4-phantom.jpg (158KB, 1599x1063px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 1599x1063px

>>32990896
The Brits make nice sleek looking planes, no doubt. But American designs take the prize for making mean looking machines.

Kind of like cars, Brits make Rolls Royce and all that classy shit, whilst Americans like a muscle car.

File: f15 and spitfire.png (326KB, 394x596px) Image search: [Google]

326KB, 394x596px

The 2 most aesthetic fighters are the F-15 and Spitfire.

>>32991308
MY DICK

>>32992750
German

File: SkyOne.jpg (8KB, 220x150px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 220x150px

Britain 1980

File: GE_test_aircraft_at_Edwards_AFB_1958.jpg (204KB, 727x485px) Image search: [Google]

204KB, 727x485px

>>32993186

File: 623079065a9ca79bcaf7f84655edbefe.jpg (60KB, 564x713px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 564x713px

>>32993186

>>32991209
Not our fault you have shit taste, Bongmeister.

>>32991190
I can't tell if that's a plane or one of those cars they used for the land speed record.

File: Avro_Arrow_3-view.jpg (93KB, 658x472px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 658x472px

Sorry but Canada beat you.

>>32991026
What would it even take to get the chance to fly one of these in this day and age?

File: image.jpg (171KB, 962x583px) Image search: [Google]

171KB, 962x583px

You fuckers need to get some taste can't believe this hasn't been posted

>>32993906
go back to 1960s

>>32991209
your list is shit, just like your country, bong

>>32991199
100% wuld fuk

>>32991769
The Rafael may be shit, but it looks nice...

From every angle except the one you posted you fabric softening retard.

>>32992723
Would be 10/10 but she's a butterboom.

File: 7a8b746276398c445f44cc8b19127a0f.gif (2MB, 384x288px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 384x288px

I, for one, welcome our new stealthy overlords!

File: F-15 of pure sexy.webm (1MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1280x720px

>>32994409
Also the F-15E is pure fucking sex and anyone who disagrees is subhuman and deserves to be deported to Syria.

File: 1456430082045.webm (454KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

454KB, 1280x720px

>>32994409
Cute flare dispenser is cute.

>>32991199
Why does this make me hard

File: Habu_Blasting_Thru.jpg (30KB, 720x463px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 720x463px

>>32990896
>Who made the most aesthetic aircraft and why was it Britain?

Aesthetic BETA Aircraft = Britain

Aesthetic ALPHA Aircraft = America

File: Avro.jpg (74KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 800x600px

Everyday I wake up and I'm mad

File: work of art.jpg (2MB, 3600x2400px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3600x2400px

*Bomber shepherding intensifies*

File: Vulcan 4.jpg (3KB, 276x183px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 276x183px

>>32991319
What's the top right?

Recognise Tu144, Concorde, Valkyrie

File: b24aerial.jpg (81KB, 487x385px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 487x385px

>>32994053
The Lanc was an awesome machine, and did great work in WWII, but it is easily the ugliest of all four engine bombers from WWII, if not the ugliest of all four AND two engine bombers. I mean, pic related looks ten times better from any angle you choose, and it's the third best looking US bomber.

File: 1459437089881s.jpg (12KB, 249x236px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 249x236px

>>32990896
>amerisharts think they can post their fugly planes where ever they want

File: B17 with Allsion Engines.jpg (216KB, 1800x1209px) Image search: [Google]

216KB, 1800x1209px

>>32995943
I'm not going to say the Lancaster is a pretty machine, but it looks nicer than that, especially on the wings (though the proportions on the b24's body are better)

If you want an aesthetic bomber though, there's always this one-of-a-kind beauty

>>32995246
>>32995232
>>32995267
High performance Interceptors were inferior the moment they came off the drawing board
>>32994898
>Aesthetic BETA Aircraft = Britain
>Aesthetic ALPHA Aircraft = America

It's time to stop posting now

File: F-16_June_2008.jpg (2MB, 3842x2655px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3842x2655px

>>32991267
Good taste

>>32990896
>no Avro Vulcan

what did he mean by this?

>>32995978
>limey cuck thinks he can post his lame /int/ memes where he wants
Go suck a pakis cock or something.

File: a26fb01b5afdb2fc341b521ddf23e319.jpg (866KB, 3000x2318px) Image search: [Google]

866KB, 3000x2318px

>>32990952
It's a rugged kind of beauty

File: 1460528626558.png (16KB, 420x420px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 420x420px

>>32996030
>Celebrating Pagan Festivals instead of Christ's Resurrection?

>>32991228
how can chinks even compete

>>32991199

B-1 is the sexiest plane in the US inventory

File: 260721-air_force-jet_fighter-Sukhoi-sukhoi_Su-30-military.jpg (273KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

273KB, 1920x1080px

I think Ruskies can make some really aesthetic planes.

>>32996030
Face it amerishart, US delegates at Farnbourgh airshow felt intimidated when they saw Victors doing Barrel Rolls knowing that their BUFF would snap in half if it even tried

>>32994452

is that a bulge

>>32996065
Those curves do some crazy stuff to me...

>>32996081
What did he mean by this?

>>32991365
I bet you supported Oliver Cromwell.

>>32996153
>playing stupid

The only reason the piece of shit smoke generator that is the B-52 is still in service is because they can stuff tonnes of gadgets into the air frame and somewhat increase it's effectiveness and suitability, the B-52 was inferior in it's original role of Nuclear Weapons Delivery, hell it can't even compare in conventional bombing (See Linebacker II)

The Vulcan on the other hand flew halfway across the world and disabled a runway with Mechanical computers while eluding Argie ADS.

Basically the BUFF is only existing today because of it's modular design, nothing about it is good, it's a piece of shit.

>>32996093
You know it bb

>>32996332
And it's still flying, while the Vulcan has no notable service record except for five total successful combat missions in which it managed one hit on a runway and otherwise was a tactical jammer that used a million gallons of fuel to get there. Hell, one of them was captured by Brazil because the British couldn't into competent aerial refueling.

File: untitled2.jpg (45KB, 624x307px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 624x307px

am i doing it right?

File: refueeling plan19.png (79KB, 775x850px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 775x850px

>>32996698
>competent aerial refueling.

are you kidding

>>32996799
All the sorties in the world can't save you if you use drogue and probe to refuel a bomber, it's terrible idea, method, and historically, execution.

>>32996799
"Hey, we've been allies for a while, do you mind if we use an airbase for a couple months?"
"Yeah? OK coool, thanks."

>>32997455
Is there a significant flow rate difference between drogue/probe and boom (THE ERECT HOSE FOR DISPENSING OF GO JUICE)? Seriously, I didn't realize there was much of a practical difference between the USAF and USN/USMC methods beyond engagement protocol.

File: blackbuck.png (241KB, 2000x2404px) Image search: [Google]

241KB, 2000x2404px

>>32996332
Ahh yes the black buck cluster fuck. I'm sure the analog computers on the vulcan even leaked oil.

>>32997567
Considering just about everyone outside the USAF uses drogue refueling so I doubt anon is doing anything but talking directly from his ass.

>>32997568
>>32997456
>Implying amerisharts could ever hope to replicate something as complex

File: Sukhoi T-4.jpg (31KB, 682x308px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 682x308px

>>32995913
That'd be the Sukhoi T-4 of Monino air museum.

>>32991194
The key word being "good".

File: tank laughs.jpg (69KB, 500x333px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 500x333px

>>32992395
Underrated

>>32991147

F > E

>>32993400
Underrated post, the HO-229 is king

>>32997567
Yes, there is quite a large flow rate difference, which was the entire reason for the development of the rigid boom. Forexample, the probe puts out 1,500 to 4,500 pounds per minute because it must use low pressure fueling and generally has a smaller diameter hose. The KC-135, on the other hand does 1,000 gallons (6,800 pounds) per minute (as a lineman, roughly the same rate as high pressure ground fueling at 40+ psi) due to higher pressure and larger connection point.

>>32997602
No one else operates 2990 aerial refueling capable aircraft, of which ~1500 are large aircraft that require a lot of fuel (and I didn't count any of the 456 dedicated tankers the USAF operates to support that fleet).

Not to mention the comparative funding between the USAF and other countries' air forces, which likely can't afford the huge amount of dedicated tankers or the aircraft you'd need booms for.

>>32998804
Well dip me in shit and roll me in sugar. Learn something new every day.

File: past, present, future.jpg (335KB, 1025x679px) Image search: [Google]

335KB, 1025x679px

>>32997679
Thanks

>>32996240
whoa too far

File: Draken 8.jpg (227KB, 800x1130px) Image search: [Google]

227KB, 800x1130px

There's just no competing

>>33000904
>>33000891
never understood what that flying schoolbus was supposed to do in case of war?

>>32996698
Maybe the Buff is still in service because amerifuck military doctrine is retarded and stuck in the dark ages? You should have realised that carpet bombing insurgents doesn't work after Vietnam.

File: image7.jpg (475KB, 2048x1447px) Image search: [Google]

475KB, 2048x1447px

>>33000910
Want to guess?

>>33000919
>get shot down
>burn

File: 117557-1.jpg (796KB, 1600x1086px) Image search: [Google]

796KB, 1600x1086px

>>33000908
>>33000904
>>33000897
>>33000891
>Implying that the Hawker Hunter isn't the best looking jet-fighter of all time.

>>32993382

A flying wing had been the dream of Jack Northrop long before Germany did shot with them.

>>32993400
>Horton herrs a HO-229

File: art-clouds-yakovlev-yak-15-feather-soviet-air-force-picture.jpg (349KB, 1920x1237px) Image search: [Google]

349KB, 1920x1237px

>superior soviet design

>>32991145
> nicknamed Double Ugly

>>32996030
>first western country ever to designate a shitskin as their head of state
>follows it by designating a reality tv show star as their next

my sides

>>32991967
gb2africa

>>32991154
The SU27 is a Soviet design, not a Russian one.

>>32996065
That's a Soviet design.

>>33002506
I'm sensing irony in this post what's wrong with the plane in your pic?

File: 0434a848a055d64f6e3d9b59c5b3ee73.jpg (59KB, 800x554px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 800x554px

>>33003379
>>33003398

You do know Russia and Russians were we und during Soviet times right?

You seem to be really motivated to point out such an insignificant discrepancy.

I think all planes are sex, but damn Cold War military aviation was the absolute hottest shit

File: Yak-15 (Feather) 6.jpg (167KB, 906x674px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 906x674px

>>33003866
The Yak-15 was literally a Jumo 004 slapped onto the nose of a Yak-3. As expected, it wasn't all that great of a plane, even by the standards of jet fighters at the time.

>>32991172
F-4 Phantom? I'm a Bong but that's a good loking plane indeed.

>>33000910
It was a capable fighter in it's day.

Certainly superior to the Mig-21 it would have faced.

>>32993906
Being a test pilot for NASA. I think they got 2 of em.

>>33004259
So was your nan

>>32991165
We doggo now

>>33004398
The last flight of the SR-71 was in 1999 by the USAF, during the short USAF reactivation of a few of them. NASA's test program with the blackbird ran from '91-'99 and ended just before the USAF retired the last one. None of them have flown for 18 years now.

>>33000952
Beautiful.

>>33004458
this is also lovely

File: 1457836882414.jpg (641KB, 1980x1312px) Image search: [Google]

641KB, 1980x1312px

>>32996060
>in the world
ftfy

>>32991163
It never hit me how late 90s early 2000s this plane looked until now. I used to think it was hot shit and now it really looks like it belongs on a 24 pack of mountain dew code red.

File: b-52_hero_lrg_01_1280x720.jpg (177KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 1280x720px

>>32997624
>Implying we need 5000 refuelings to fly across the globe and back.

Why don't you show us your modern strategic bomber design instead of something with the range of the Wright Flyer in a headwind.

>>33000917
You never know when you'll need to carpet bomb a city, they're already built ad still more than flyable with modern mission systems. It's very low impact to throw more modern bombers on top of that.

File: Vulcan 2.jpg (60KB, 800x519px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 800x519px

>>33005128
Why must you make me feel anon?

>>33000917
Or maybe because it's just a great aircraft? We already operate the B-1B and the B-2, it's not like we're relying on the B-52 as out primary means of aerial bombardment.

Probably also worth mentioning that the B-52 was introduced a full year ahead of it's closest British counterpart, the Vulcan, and has continued to serve 33 years after the Vulcan's retirement.

>>33005200
Is it normal for an aircraft to wear both it's home base markings and op-for markings at the same time?

File: 1480226027862.jpg (2MB, 3113x3600px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3113x3600px

>>33005188
because i can moahahahahahaaaaa

>>32993186
All these brilliant eras in Aviation. All before I was born. Meanwhile the current one is lame as fuck. We best be /supersonic/ commercial soon, and /innaSPACE/. Aviation must return to its proper glory

>>32993186
Braking records? Like 200 to full stop in 1.21 seconds?

File: 704023cf277c09d26489f1713cf3d731.jpg (64KB, 600x449px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 600x449px

Really? No-one posted her yet!? WTF has happened to /k/....
I do like the B-1 but it remind me of a seal.

File: Gpl2j4.jpg (64KB, 1400x821px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 1400x821px

Between this and the SR-71 are other countries even trying?

File: Bristol Type 188 Cosford.jpg (131KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 800x600px

>>33005313
I saw her at Cosford Museum when I was younger, didn't think much of her - was just a big white rectangular plane, and the smaller and shinier fighters took my attention.

Now I mourn for what could have been - truly the greatest threat to any British plane isn't AAA or SAMs, it's White Papers

Brushed Aluminum looks good anywhere

File: image.jpg (429KB, 1600x1456px) Image search: [Google]

429KB, 1600x1456px

This is so ugly that it loops around and becomes beautiful.

>>32995986
Holy shit... B-17 has always been best bomber, but that's a whole new level

File: IMG_0202.jpg (31KB, 680x383px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 680x383px

>>32990957
Weak attempt, burger.

File: 1400510008727.jpg (197KB, 2000x1136px) Image search: [Google]

197KB, 2000x1136px

A thread full of plebs. What a surprise.

File: su-27_ukraine_mig-29_slovakia.jpg (419KB, 1001x679px) Image search: [Google]

419KB, 1001x679px

>no Su-27 "Flanker"
>no MiG-29 "Fulcrum"
This thread is fucking gay. Argue about combat capabilities all you want but these two are pure 110% AESTHETIC.

>>33005555
Bristol 188 is love.

File: IMG_2124.jpg (14KB, 600x133px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 600x133px

>>33004879
I like the older woodland camouflage.

>>32991330
this thing looks like something the zeon would have from gundam 0079

>>33005141
I love the Vulcan. It is a gorgeous plane. But I'll never understand why it is so underwhelming in pure performance numbers.

Yes, it's about half the size and a bit less than half the empty weight of a B-52, and it's a bit faster both in max speed and cruise. But in a strategic bomber what are the two primary characteristics? Payload and range:

B-52:
>70,000lbs payload
>8,764 nmi ferry range, 3,890 nmi combat radius

Vulcan:
>21,000lbs payload
>2265 nmi max range

So, for a bomber a bit less than half the size, you get 30% of the payload and 26% of the range. It just makes no sense. Maybe they should have scaled the design down to two engines, upped the mach number and used her as a low supersonic tactical bomber.

>>33006114

Because they were designed to do completely different jobs.

It's like asking why an Abrams and an M8 are so different because they're both tanks.

>>33006206
>Because they were designed to do completely different jobs.
Please expand. Genuinely curious. Is it not a strategic bomber? I mean, it's not designed to do what the B-1 or B-2 do is it?

>>33006258
It was designed to nuke moscow in the 1950s. Nothing else.

>>33006278
>It was designed to nuke moscow in the 1950s. Nothing else.
But it doesn't have the range to make a round trip to Moscow from the UK...
>Moscow to London is 1,350 nmi one way
>Vulcan has a 1,133 nmi combat radius
I mean, I get that it could probably make it with the reduced total weight of a nuclear payload, but that would leave literally zero room for flying around AA emplacements, avoiding areas patrolled by Russia fighters or increasing speed beyond best efficient cruise. Again, it just doesn't make much sense to me.

If you, as the RAF, want a bomber for nuking Moscow, I would think you'd want something with at least a 2,000 nmi combat radius to account for mission route variations and striking essential production and fuel facilities plus air/rocket bases in southwest Russia. I mean, the Valiant has almost twice the range with the same payload, and the Victor has 2.5 times the range with nearly twice the payload. I just don't see where the Vulcan adds anything to tactical or strategic options.

What am I missing?

File: Vulcan 1.jpg (51KB, 764x380px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 764x380px

>>33006383
>round trip
Who said anything about round trip? - it just had to get there, and there probably wouldn't me much to come back to

>>33006766
>Of course we can't do it, that would be dumb!
>We have the perfect amount of capability, and having more is dumb!
>Fuck being able to fly back if you win, that's for chumps!

This is why the EU should be happy you're leaving.

>>32991156

This particular 109 model has none

Also hub guns were a thing in slavistan and burgerland as well

>>33006383
Would likely be taking off from mainland Europe somewhere.

>>33008842
Not in worst case Zerg Rush/REFORGER scenarios. Much of western Europe would be overrun in such contingency planning, and with strategic bombers and nuke delivery, you plan for worst contingency, not best.

>>32991026
I shed some tears at the Smithsonian.
For a multitude of reasons, but this was what pushed me over the edge.

>>32991308
I had a dream last night where Mattis held a press conference and announced the commissioning of a new plane designed by N/G.
I woke up kind of excited in a bit of a haze and started researching the details on the internet.

It was a weird morning for me.

>>32992732
This is a perfect post.

>>32996065
PAK-Fa is nice looking.

Then again, how could a bootleg Raptor not look nice?

File: image.jpg (2MB, 3077x1683px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3077x1683px

>>32990896
Lol

>>32996093
OwO

>>33000926
>showing us the same image as in the OP
Stop holding out cunt. That's assuming you actually have more.

File: tu160_takeoff.jpg (54KB, 1000x572px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 1000x572px

>>33004879

not thicc enough

File: The had one job....jpg (398KB, 1200x812px) Image search: [Google]

398KB, 1200x812px

>No TSR-2
What in the biscuit is wrong with you chaps?

File: 2b4044107f9e6f5e9d719861fe1ab77f.jpg (348KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

348KB, 1024x768px

>>33010864

File: b743e9d31e3b7be1ffb72ad2d3b51268.jpg (528KB, 1600x1078px) Image search: [Google]

528KB, 1600x1078px

>>32992030
Finally, some good taste.
Also pic

File: 8150417803_5a322be8aa_b.jpg (282KB, 1024x697px) Image search: [Google]

282KB, 1024x697px

>>33012417

>>33000910
It was the worlds first BVR fighter and Europe's first supersonic one

File: fgahunter.jpg (85KB, 525x361px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 525x361px

>>33012429

File: Hawker_Hunter_F6A,_UK_-_Air_Force_AN2269812.jpg (165KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

165KB, 1024x683px

>>33012439

File: HH5-Hawker-Hunter-T8-from-RNAS-Brawdy-1967-over-Pembrokeshire.jpg (21KB, 525x349px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 525x349px

>>33012447

File: Hunter-3.jpg (92KB, 702x478px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 702x478px

>>33012451
>>33010864
Enough for you?

File: cba0eb6716dd80f21bffce3ced55471a-1.jpg (464KB, 1600x1284px) Image search: [Google]

464KB, 1600x1284px

>>33012433
I thought the first BVR fighter was the Skyknight using the Sparrow missile?

>>33011445
Lovely aircraft, shame the landing gear is so goofy

>>33006043
Agressor camo give me a boner.
Tell me \k\ - i am normal?

>>33012515
Thats perfectly natural don't worry.

File: 2qbzq85.jpg (173KB, 640x426px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 640x426px

>>32991147
>not posting the best looking Axis fighter

File: 1480821812864.jpg (187KB, 1024x660px) Image search: [Google]

187KB, 1024x660px

>>32991209
>A-10
>SR-71
>Ass
Are you being retarded on purpose?

File: f14-tomcat-920-0.jpg (56KB, 920x575px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 920x575px

>>32991267
That's not an F-14.

>>32991319
>Get killed by Russians
>Get killed by Americans
>Get killed by Brits/French
>Or get killed by the other country

>>33013867
The A10 is pig ugly mate.

>>33014038
To steal a quote from The Hitch Hikers Guide.
Kill-O-Zap :
"The designer of the gun had clearly not been instructed to beat about the bush. 'Make it evil,' he'd been told. 'Make it totally clear that this gun has a right end and a wrong end. Make it totally clear to anyone standing at the wrong end that things are going badly for them. If that means sticking all sort of spikes and prongs and blackened bits all over it, then so be it. This is not a gun for hanging over the fireplace or sticking in the umbrella stand, it is a gun for going out and making people miserable with."
A10 kinda fits in there somewhere.

>>33013875
Yes, it is.

File: Westland Whirlwind.jpg (42KB, 750x423px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 750x423px

Reap the Whirlwind.

>>32993885
Thanks for saving me the post mate, avro best plane

>>32994429
F-14 is better

>>32995267
I cry everytime i wonder what could have been.

>>32996748
Yes

>>33004582
This genuinely makes me sad

File: lancaster-and-meteor-in-flight-refuelling.jpg (52KB, 599x467px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 599x467px

Tanking :)

>>32991144

>Mom said it's my turn to bomb the arabs!

File: 1466372856211.jpg (225KB, 1306x904px) Image search: [Google]

225KB, 1306x904px

The Little Huntress!

File: Italian_IMAM_Ro.57_bis_fighter_in_flight.jpg (74KB, 600x332px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 600x332px

>>33013124
Italian planes aesthetic as fuck

>>32996081
>Literally half the payload of a B-52
I hope you enjoyed your sissy ballerina plane for the decade you had it before it got turned into a tanker

>>32996332
>BUFF is only existing today because of it's [GOOD]modular design
>nothing about it is good
Can someone translate?
I do not speak Brainlet.

Oh, British haha, sorry, not Brainlet haha!

>>33014904
Objectively false.

>>32995943
are you blind?

Lanc has far better proportions than that thing.

also better performance but thats a different issue.

>>33018936
>also better performance but thats a different issue.
Uh, no.

The B-24 had:
>better cruise speed
>much better service ceiling (very important for bombers of the day)
>much better climb rate
>better defensive gun emplacements and fire arcs
>more capable of absorbing damage

The Lanc had, compared to the B-24:
>better range
>better payload

However, more than anything, it's the casualty rates that tell the story:
182 Lancasters were lost in 8,614 sorties for a 2.11% loss rate. 8AF B-24s posted a 1.26% loss rate for the entire war. If your ass was in a B-24 (or B-17 for that matter), you were more likely to get your bombs dropped and get back home than if you were in a Lanc.

>>33019116
range and payload matter far more in a strategic bomber than cruise speed or climb rate lthough the liberator wasnt significantly faster either with a cruising speed 15mph faster and a max speed mph faster

as for ceiling as neither could actually fly above fighters or flak the difference was not large enough to be relevant - a larger difference might have been.

as for casualties, citations please. notably do you mean the 8th air force as in the formation created in 1944 from VIII bomber command, oor are you including the predecessor formations losses as well so losses from 1942 onwards. Or did you mean the type as a whole? in which case the fact that they saw extensive use as maritime patrol bombers and as long range transports would tend to drive the per sortie casualty rate down somewhat.

File: 461034.jpg (161KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

161KB, 1920x1080px

ITT: Shit taste central.

>>33019994
Why would better range matter if all the targets were in range of both?

>>33020183
Don't bother. He went straight sheet anchor on his damage control.

>>32991209
sperg

>>33020183
why would speed matter if both are slower than the fighters opposing them?

range and payload are the key requirements in a strategic bomber range to allow the bomber to hit as wide a variety of targets as possible, and potentially detour around known enemy defenses. and payload so that when the target is reached worthwhile damage can be done

>>32996053
Their eyes are specially slanted to allow them to see it better.

>>33020111

Goodness that thing is ugly.

File: file.png (3MB, 1808x1211px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1808x1211px

>>33020111
I don't know, I was never much one for the two-planes-sewn-together look

>>33020323
A side by side comparison is more or less useless when you consider the aircraft were used differently, with the more vulnerable Lancaster at night and the American bombers during the day. US bombers had secondary targets if their primary target wasn't visible, range wasn't an issue unless you wanted to bomb targets in Poland.

Also if you swapped their roles neither plane would perform as well. The Lancaster is ill suited to daytime raids and the B-24's Norden bomb sight would be nigh useless at night and it wouldn't be able to carry as many incendiaries.

This is a dumb argument that ignores the realities of the theater and doctrines of the different air forces. Both aircraft performed well in the jobs they were given.