ITT: military aircraft that you can't decide as to whether you believe they look good or not
The Lightning looks better without the overwing tanks.
>>65509378I'm sure about the F 22, but this...
The larger tail, trimmer (slightly) fuselage, and different engine cowl of the FM-2 make a big difference IMO.
>>65509378
>>65509562If they weren't broken they were actively trying to kill you. Apparently.
SEPECAT Jaguar… Amazing looking from some angles and totally derpy from others.
>>65509586Worthwhile sacrifice for more firepower.
>>65509378I feel this way about the Jeff.
>>65509553>trimmer (slightly) fuselageIt's the same fuselage as prior F4Fs.Only difference is the larger diameter single row radial engine cowling, which adds four prominent exhaust stacks (a pair of which exit above the wing) and the taller vertical fin. It's a stubbier less streamlined fuselage than the preceding F4F-3 / -4
>>65509378Not only does it look absolutely spanking, it was a fucking power climbing beast that intercepted U-2s at 66k feet.
>>65509590Jaaag.
>>65509817
>>65509565
>>65509378>>65509393I can help with this. The English Electric Lightning is gross as fuck and has no redeeming qualities. There, problem solved.
>>65509532Grumman cats always look good
>>65509837>it was a fucking power climbing beast that intercepted U-2s at 66k feet.Once the rare few occasions that it worked, it was.Even on their best days, the Lightings made the worst products of British Leyland, Lancia, and Alfa Romeo look flawlessly reliable by comparison.Huge credit to the pilots who were brave (or dumb) enough to fly these things to the limit, because there was always at least one (usually multiple) features on any given plane that was either flat-out broken or just didn't work as intended.It was an amazing plane on paper, less so in actual military service.
>>65509590Same could be said of the flightless jags too
>>65509739Really? The F2Ms i’ve seen seem more streamlined because the line from the front of the engine cowling to the fuselage is straighter.
>>65509927No idea what you mean. The Pratt & Whitney-engined -3 / -4 has a more streamlined sleeker nose cowling.Are you blind?
>>65509393Preggo slag.
>>65509839macross lookin ass
>>65510031
>>65510603Nah. Skyhawks are like the cute 5’3” athletic shortstack that’s a ton of fun and an amazing ride even if not the prettiest.
>>65510069>not posting the Op. Granby original
Sukhoi's non-Flanker designs. They're oddballs but I can't help but appreciate them.
Hawker Tempest/TyphoonBeautiful planes but the intake still looks goofy
>>65510853Looks good to me!
>>65510853>/TyphoonMaybe but the Tempest is completely different airframe and wing (that was laminar flow)Typhoon definitely looks a bit goofy and crude. Tempest is a substantial refinement and upgrade, makes the Napier Sabre intake palatable. Also there's a Bristol Centaurus radial version of the Tempest (which, by the way, does not 'look like' the later naval Sea Fury, that was a smaller shorter-fuselage and different wing airplane).The Tempest's wing and length of fuselage give it elegance and poise.
>>65510950probably the best answer to OP
It is ugly, depending on the angle.
>>65511078>depending on the angleyes the F-14—much as I revere it from full-decade-prior-to-that-disgusting-movie when it 1st entered USN fleet service—is one of those tranny planesthe variable geometry, glove vanes, flaps, slats, gear can significantly morph its external appearance
>>65510950this entire thread could easily consist of British Cold War shit
>>65511097
>>65511099
>>65511103Paper airplane goofball
>>65511103TSR.2 looks as though it shouldn't fly with that tiny main wing>>65511099checked, yes the Scimitar and Sea Vixen are in the same boat
>>65509895that's the second M-21 mothership (s/n 60-6941 Article 135) on the runway at Groom Lake, later in the D-21 test program circa 1965The first M-21 (s/n 60-6941 Article 134 pictured ^^upthread on the its first mated test flight with D-21 over Nevada, 22 December 1964 which same day also was the maiden flight of the SR-71A first prototype down in Palmdale, California) never launched a drone and was used mostly for aerodynamic flight tests.
>>65511286>first M-21 (s/n 60-6941 Article 13460-6940*
>>65509393The belly makes it look like a pregnant yak.
>>65510941I think the Typhoon looks sexy too the intake notwithstanding, fite me.
>>65511718Typhoon looks clumsy and overweight.
>>65511078I don't like how wide-set its engines were. The original engines also had a really ugly quality to their nozzles that matched their unreliability.
There are those who call Tornado ugly. I am not one of them.
>>65512567Allegedly Tornado was designed with short legs so that Germans couldn't fly a nuke to Moscow.
Tornado was neat looking for the mid-seventies when it arrivedVertical fin does seem a bit out of proportion though
>>65509393literally norf the plane
>>65513222checked, Blackburn Buccaneer is the most under recognized post-WWII western military jet
>>65509839it's the dual mainwheels
>>65509393Yeah but how did they mount them? A crane?
>>65513914kek perfect
>>65513182>>65513746most mil 2-seat trainers look weirdnot picrel though
>>65509586>>65509562but they look so KINO
the big hump on it was so weird at firstbut after staring at it for a long while in pictures and playing warthunder seeing a non-SMT variant of the 21 without it makes it look naked
FW-190, at least prior to the D variants. They just look off to me. Like if you removed all insignia, I wouldn't necessarily call it "German" looking. They're small, the gear's stance is very wide, and you have a weird mix of rounded and straight surfaces that overall don't look very proportionate.
>>65513222Any (pre stealth) jet that is easiest to track by the dust they kick up is going to get a certain reputation.Plenty of people understood Buccaneer.
>>65514860radial-engine 190s are the only way>gear stance? all Fw 190s irrespective of power plant are the same
>>65509526B looks goofy but I like the A and C
>>65515425Funny, I like B and A but I can't take C's long ass wingspan
I like the C for its wings.
>>65509393>shes pregnantgod thats so hot
>>65515504I do too but it also looks a bit weirdF-35 looks odd no matter the variant
>>65515669what's weird about it?
>>65509839oh the jaaaaaaaaaaaaaaag....taking a nap
>>65509378I just like em FAThttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bRALmFLEhc
>>65515688checked, proportionsWhen you look at the (C) airplane from some angles the bigger wing looks good, but...for example the direct overhead view posted in ^^pic, looks weird out-of-proportion and balance to rest of the airframe
>>65515704neat view of the landing gear
>>65510950It’s so embarrassing for the British that this useless underarmed pile of subsonic shit was a contemporary of the F-4
>>65509378the shark mouth makes it look betterdoesnt stop it from looking like a goblin shark tho
>>65515771>contemporary of the F-4(briefly in its service duration timeframe perhaps but) Not really. The DH.100 prototype first flew September 1951. First concept of (what would become, years later) McDonnell's Phantom II emerged in 1954 as a proposed twin-engine development of the existing F3H Demon—an actual contemporary of the Sea Vixen—naval fighter, and after years of re-work of that twin engine design proposal the XF4H-1 prototype was finally ready for its maiden flight in late May 1958. They are different generation fighter designs and of course the F4H / F-110 / F-4 Phantom II was designed from its outset to be doublesonic.RE: in British service, the U.K. (F-4K and F-4M) Phantom FG.1 and FGR.2 had different engines from the American planes and only flew as prototypes in mid-1966, entering service 1968 about four years prior to the Sea Vixen's retirement.
>>65515783>*Rolls eyes* Ughhh, fiiine, I'll go patrol the airspace.
>>65515848>DH.100DH.110*
>>65516080Ugh what idiot slapped an AI upscaler on this
>>65509624Good for Pakistan.I was impressed at the history of how they secretly developed their nukes.
>>65509378>>65509393You are literally gay if you don't like EELs
>>65515783The G.91s all look great though
