data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/a9471/a947133dc193d1448ce6b43f26a6369a70cc1058" alt="Razz :razz:"
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.
Moderator: LadyTevar
Okay, I already voted for Me-262, but Azathoth will still devour your soul for leaving out Bf-109. Muahahaha!!!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.
Corsairs rocked the world, baby. Odd how my favorite birds were both F-4s.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.
Fat? I always thought the Corsair looked skinny.KAN wrote:By the way, Jon, the Corsair is fat and fugly...
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:Fat? I always thought the Corsair looked skinny.KAN wrote:By the way, Jon, the Corsair is fat and fugly...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:Fat? I always thought the Corsair looked skinny.KAN wrote:By the way, Jon, the Corsair is fat and fugly...It was a bitch to land because of that long-ass nose, but I think it was the coolest Navy bird, at least.
There aren't ANY carrier-based WWI aircraft, actually, what with there being no carriers at the timeKreshna 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
Make up your mind. Either there were no beautiful carrier-based aircraft, or the Spitfire is beautiful. Seafire, anyone?(in contrary to land-based fighters like Bf-109 or Spitfire).
I had no choice, Bruce. I had to alter history to keep the Anti-Monitor from destroying the universe!Batman wrote:There aren't ANY carrier-based WWI aircraft, actually, what with there being no carriers at the timeKreshna 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![]()
Duh! Forgot that one. Okay, so there is a beautiful carrier-based WWII aircraft; the Seafire, that is.Batman wrote:Make up your mind. Either there were no beautiful carrier-based aircraft, or the Spitfire is beautiful. Seafire, anyone?(in contrary to land-based fighters like Bf-109 or Spitfire).![]()
The Bf-109 IS beautiful you heathen!Batman wrote:And the Bf-109 has the same problems the Typhoon has where visuals are concerned. Beautiful my ass.
Liar. WE did that. I can't recall you being mentioned anywhere during Crisis of Infinite Earths.Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote:I had no choice, Bruce. I had to alter history to keep the Anti-Monitor from destroying the universe!Batman wrote:There aren't ANY carrier-based WWI aircraft, actually, what with there being no carriers at the timeKreshna 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![]()
That isn't exactly news you know.(and no, John Corben didn't kill your parents.)
The Jug was a lot MORE massive than the Hellcat and it was a land-based fighter. You're overgeneralizing.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?
Like usual, the true hero is being left out of history. :sad:Batman wrote:Liar. WE did that. I can't recall you being mentioned anywhere during Crisis of Infinite Earths.Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote:I had no choice, Bruce. I had to alter history to keep the Anti-Monitor from destroying the universe!Batman wrote: There aren't ANY carrier-based WWI aircraft, actually, what with there being no carriers at the time![]()
There's something you haven't known; I did. But it was an accident, really!Batman wrote:That isn't exactly news you know.(and no, John Corben didn't kill your parents.)
The Jug was a lot MORE massive than the Hellcat and it was a land-based fighter. You're overgeneralizing.[/quote]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?
More internal volume for fuel, armour, engine, weapons, ammunition, wing/gear hydraulics, radio, Valen knows what else?Ah, the P-47. Now I remember that. Duh!The Jug was a lot MORE massive than the Hellcat and it was a land-based fighter. You're overgeneralizing.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?
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?
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.Batman wrote:More internal volume for fuel, armour, engine, weapons, ammunition, wing/gear hydraulics, radio, Valen knows what else?Ah, the P-47. Now I remember that. Duh!The Jug was a lot MORE massive than the Hellcat and it was a land-based fighter. You're overgeneralizing.
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?
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?
Not finding a bird pretty does not equal not caring about the looks, period.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.
Where the western world is concerned it is the ONLY boy on the block for what it does.It's the baddest boy on the block for what it does.
I know. The A instead of the F in the designation is something of a dead giveaway.Keep in mind the A10 is not a dogfighter.
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.Where the western world is concerned it is the ONLY boy on the block for what it does.