LibriumArcana.Games

Alright, while we're in the mood of discussing fighter aircraft... Jets are all fine and good, but they simply don't have the class (in my opinion) of the fine prop fighters of WWII. A lot of them were beautiful, graceful, and just plain badass. Even better when they have a topless chick painted on the side. Name your favorite!

My choice, of course, would be the P-51D Mustang. It had the smoothest curves, and an aggressive, powerful look to it. The Spitfire comes a close second.

Poll's up, but it's hardly all-inclusive. I just included some common choices.

You exclude Messerschmitt Bf-109? Heathen! Azathoth shalt devoureth thy soul!!

Ah, from the poll options, I'll pick Me-262 then. Exotic, curved shape!

Of course, before anyone asks, yes, the Me-262 is a jet. It's also from WWII, and just too cool not to include, so nyah.

Ra wrote:Of course, before anyone asks, yes, the Me-262 is a jet. It's also from WWII, and just too cool not to include, so nyah.

Okay, I already voted for Me-262, but Azathoth will still devour your soul for leaving out Bf-109. Muahahaha!!!

By the way, Jon, the Corsair is fat and fugly...

Of the listed, the Corsair. That plane looked good AND was mean at the same time. Pity it sucked as a carrier bird.
Close second would be the Fw190D. Now THAT's an awesome german WW2 plane. The Bf109 just looked meh by comparison.
Honorable mention to the P-38. I just LOVE that double tail design. And it wasn't a half bad airplane to boot.

Batman wrote:Of the listed, the Corsair. That plane looked good AND was mean at the same time. Pity it sucked as a carrier bird.
Close second would be the Fw190D. Now THAT's an awesome german WW2 plane. The Bf109 just looked meh by comparison.
Honorable mention to the P-38. I just LOVE that double tail design. And it wasn't a half bad airplane to boot.

Corsairs rocked the world, baby. Odd how my favorite birds were both F-4s.

KAN wrote:By the way, Jon, the Corsair is fat and fugly...

Fat? I always thought the Corsair looked skinny. It was a bitch to land because of that long-ass nose, but I think it was the coolest Navy bird, at least.

I'll admit that a childhood fondness of Black Sheep Squadron biased me toward the Corsairs.

Ra wrote:

KAN wrote:By the way, Jon, the Corsair is fat and fugly...

Fat? I always thought the Corsair looked skinny. It was a bitch to land because of that long-ass nose, but I think it was the coolest Navy bird, at least.

I, er, confused the Corsair with the Hellcat, but still, neither aircrafts are beautiful IMO. In fact, I don't think there's a beautiful carrier-based WWI fighter aircraft (in contrary to land-based fighters like Bf-109 or Spitfire).

Ra wrote:

KAN wrote:By the way, Jon, the Corsair is fat and fugly...

Fat? I always thought the Corsair looked skinny. It was a bitch to land because of that long-ass nose, but I think it was the coolest Navy bird, at least.

I, er, confused the Corsair with the Hellcat, but still, neither aircrafts are beautiful IMO. In fact, I don't think there's a beautiful carrier-based WWI fighter aircraft (in contrary to land-based fighters like Bf-109 or Spitfire).

True... the Corsair is about as elegant as carrier fighters got before the jet age. The A6M Zero was stubby and unappealing, the Wildcat/Hellcat family looked like a carrier-borne bumble bee, etc.

I think the thing that really made me include the F4U was its own little "charm", and the fact that its gull-like wings looked awesome. Funny, the wings are like that to keep the Corsair's gigantic propeller from hitting the flight deck, but they break up the monotony of the design nicely, unlike the Hellcat and its squared-off wings.

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote: I, er, confused the Corsair with the Hellcat, but still, neither aircrafts are beautiful IMO. In fact, I don't think there's a beautiful carrier-based WWI fighter aircraft

There aren't ANY carrier-based WWI aircraft, actually, what with there being no carriers at the time

(in contrary to land-based fighters like Bf-109 or Spitfire).

Make up your mind. Either there were no beautiful carrier-based aircraft, or the Spitfire is beautiful. Seafire, anyone?
And the Bf-109 has the same problems the Typhoon has where visuals are concerned. Beautiful my ass.

Batman wrote:

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote: I, er, confused the Corsair with the Hellcat, but still, neither aircrafts are beautiful IMO. In fact, I don't think there's a beautiful carrier-based WWI fighter aircraft

There aren't ANY carrier-based WWI aircraft, actually, what with there being no carriers at the time

I had no choice, Bruce. I had to alter history to keep the Anti-Monitor from destroying the universe!

(and no, John Corben didn't kill your parents.)

Batman wrote:

(in contrary to land-based fighters like Bf-109 or Spitfire).

Make up your mind. Either there were no beautiful carrier-based aircraft, or the Spitfire is beautiful. Seafire, anyone?

Duh! Forgot that one. Okay, so there is a beautiful carrier-based WWII aircraft; the Seafire, that is.

A side question though: why the Hellcat needs to be so fat? First I thought it something related to design necessity or such (for carrier-based aircraft), but the Seafire doesn't need to be so chubby, does it?

Batman wrote:And the Bf-109 has the same problems the Typhoon has where visuals are concerned. Beautiful my ass.

The Bf-109 IS beautiful you heathen!

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote:

Batman wrote:

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote: I, er, confused the Corsair with the Hellcat, but still, neither aircrafts are beautiful IMO. In fact, I don't think there's a beautiful carrier-based WWI fighter aircraft

There aren't ANY carrier-based WWI aircraft, actually, what with there being no carriers at the time

I had no choice, Bruce. I had to alter history to keep the Anti-Monitor from destroying the universe!

Liar. WE did that. I can't recall you being mentioned anywhere during Crisis of Infinite Earths.

(and no, John Corben didn't kill your parents.)

That isn't exactly news you know.

Duh! Forgot that one. Okay, so there is a beautiful carrier-based WWII aircraft; the Seafire, that is.
A side question though: why the Hellcat needs to be so fat? First I thought it something related to design necessity or such (for carrier-based aircraft), but the Seafire doesn't need to be so chubby, does it?

The Jug was a lot MORE massive than the Hellcat and it was a land-based fighter. You're overgeneralizing.

Batman wrote:

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote:

Batman wrote: There aren't ANY carrier-based WWI aircraft, actually, what with there being no carriers at the time

I had no choice, Bruce. I had to alter history to keep the Anti-Monitor from destroying the universe!

Liar. WE did that. I can't recall you being mentioned anywhere during Crisis of Infinite Earths.

Like usual, the true hero is being left out of history. :sad:

Batman wrote:

(and no, John Corben didn't kill your parents.)

That isn't exactly news you know.

There's something you haven't known; I did. But it was an accident, really!

Duh! Forgot that one. Okay, so there is a beautiful carrier-based WWII aircraft; the Seafire, that is.
A side question though: why the Hellcat needs to be so fat? First I thought it something related to design necessity or such (for carrier-based aircraft), but the Seafire doesn't need to be so chubby, does it?

The Jug was a lot MORE massive than the Hellcat and it was a land-based fighter. You're overgeneralizing.[/quote]

Ah, the P-47. Now I remember that. Duh!

Still, regardless of whether it's land-based or carrier-based, why certain fighters need to be so fat? For the Jug, the reason being is the armor, but armor issues aside, what other design goals to achieve with such shape, in contrary to the sleek fuselage of, say, Spitfire?

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote: Duh! Forgot that one. Okay, so there is a beautiful carrier-based WWII aircraft; the Seafire, that is.
A side question though: why the Hellcat needs to be so fat? First I thought it something related to design necessity or such (for carrier-based aircraft), but the Seafire doesn't need to be so chubby, does it?

The Jug was a lot MORE massive than the Hellcat and it was a land-based fighter. You're overgeneralizing.

Ah, the P-47. Now I remember that. Duh!
Still, regardless of whether it's land-based or carrier-based, why certain fighters need to be so fat? For the Jug, the reason being is the armor, but armor issues aside, what other design goals to achieve with such shape, in contrary to the sleek fuselage of, say, Spitfire?

More internal volume for fuel, armour, engine, weapons, ammunition, wing/gear hydraulics, radio, Valen knows what else?
The Hellcat had twice the range of the Seafire, and massed roughly twice as much, too, despite NOT having considerably larger length/wingspan. You think maybe all that additional volume/mass had to go somewhere?

Batman wrote:

The Jug was a lot MORE massive than the Hellcat and it was a land-based fighter. You're overgeneralizing.

Ah, the P-47. Now I remember that. Duh!
Still, regardless of whether it's land-based or carrier-based, why certain fighters need to be so fat? For the Jug, the reason being is the armor, but armor issues aside, what other design goals to achieve with such shape, in contrary to the sleek fuselage of, say, Spitfire?

More internal volume for fuel, armour, engine, weapons, ammunition, wing/gear hydraulics, radio, Valen knows what else?
The Hellcat had twice the range of the Seafire, and massed roughly twice as much, too, despite NOT having considerably larger length/wingspan. You think maybe all that additional volume/mass had to go somewhere?

Well I'm actually thinking more in aerodynamics context. I wonder wheter such shape would be better for a specific maneuvering purpose, like carrier landing or dive bombing.

Um-smallest reasonably aerodynamic airframe they could wrap around the engine, weapons and fuel tanks?
Seriously, that's more or less how the Wildcat/Hellcat came to be.

One reason why the Hellcat/Corsair/P-47 appear fat is because they all have radial engines which are wider than the inline engines of the Spitfire and Mustang.

Like I said I usually don't really care about looks in a weapon system (my favorite jet of all time? The A-10!) But I do love the Hellcat, damn nasty kitty.

What's wrong with the looks of the A-10? It may not be pretty (they don't call the bird the Warthog for nothing) but damn if it doesn't look mean (especially with the right nose art. Screw low visibility paintjobs, I WANT NOSE ART BACK!!!)

Y'all are talking about pretty birds. And if there is one thing the Hog is not it is not pretty and really no one fucking cares. It's the baddest boy on the block for what it does.

Keep in mind the A10 is not a dogfighter.

frigidmagi wrote:Y'all are talking about pretty birds. And if there is one thing the Hog is not it is not pretty and really no one fucking cares.

Not finding a bird pretty does not equal not caring about the looks, period.
I LIKE the Warthog visuals.

It's the baddest boy on the block for what it does.

Where the western world is concerned it is the ONLY boy on the block for what it does.

Keep in mind the A10 is not a dogfighter.

I know. The A instead of the F in the designation is something of a dead giveaway.

Where the western world is concerned it is the ONLY boy on the block for what it does.

Nagative. It's function is also covered by a number of helos such as the Longbow. It may be the only jet but it's hardly the only kid playing the game.

I WAS referring to fixed-wing aircraft.
And frankly if an attack helicopter scores a gun kill on an MBT that's a fortuitous accident. The Hog is DESIGNED to kill tanks that way.