Can we just take a moment to admire and appreciate this absolute unit?
nah
>>65240363just make a thread about the crash and get on with it
>>65240377checked, already is : >>65240148
>>65240377How about no
>>65240363>>65240366checked,Yes.
>>65240387>how he lived>murdering civilians and eating sa-2's due to complacent planning
>>65240363B-52s will carpet bombing Mars.
>>65240387You never asked how she was doing while she was still alive
Balls 8 back in the day
Landing gear of this airplane is amazing.
eat shit :)
>>65240363It's shit. It was THE ONLY American bomber stream that was turned away from bombing a target EVER. It happened in Vietnam and caused by ground based SAMs. Completely humiliating.
>>65240363>less payload than the B-36>slower than the F-111>not as sexy as the B-58What did SAC mean by this?
>>65240363eh pretty cool guy.
>>65242638It had at least the same payload as the B-36 (which was too loaded down anyway with all of its engines and gun turrets; the later RB-36F and H eliminated a lot of sheer dead weight). Big Belly-modified Stratofortresses could haul 70,000 lb of iron bombs.
More ordnance dropped, mostly by this fat fuck, secretly on Laos, than was used by all participants during WWII, and they're still communist to this day kek.
engine testing
>>65240363Boeing really hadthebest engineers. Fun fact, due to the UK Brain Drain. Not just that, but props, right?
>>65244817More engine testing.
>>65246089yep
>>65244965Killing slants was its own reward
>>65240363I prefer the Tu-22M3
hey guys can i play?
>>65246512>even more overweight and retrograde than its progenitor
>>65246512You get a turn with the Hustler.
>>65242638>Be SAC>Lobby to kill the objectively superior strategic bomber because it's in the wrong branch>Moan and scream about how SLBMs don't count and you alone should get all the strategic defense budgetPic related
>>65242638>>65247174>strategic bomber>B-58carrier based (latter emphasis)
>>65251170Grandpa having a shitty afternoon in the original, 1955, USS HORNET>I said the original Navy strategic bomber>Perfection
>>65251170>>B-58>carrier based>96 feet LONG>carrier basedWtf?
>>65240363I don't think the US would ever procure another conventional bomber, so this is it fellas.
>>65251973It wasn't. Anon is referring to his pic related, the A-5.
superior bomber coming through. Bask in my polished aluminum airframe.