best and worst looking aircraft.

Steyr

Silenceisbliss wrote: »

This plane was originally designated the RS-71. RS stood for Reconnaissance/Strike. It could carry a single nuclear gravity bomb.

A nuclear Gravity Bomb sounds real menacing.:eek:

oztots

View Profile wrote: »

Wasn't that the same aircraft Leo crashed into Beverley Hills in the Aviator?

Dont think so, what he built was a hughes aircraft. Strange that him being hughes and all.

And the p-38 is beutiful. I just love it. The P-61 is the ugly big brother.

Silenceisbliss

oztots wrote: »

I think so yeah, what he built was a hughes aircraft (the XF-11 was designed by Howard Huges who was played by Leo in The Aviator) . And the gobsheen did crash one into the beverly hills mountain side in said movie

And the p-38 is beutiful. I just love it. The P-61 is the ugly big brother.

fixed for you :P

Silenceisbliss

also, does anyone have any clue as to what this or if it's even real? I just saw it on some random page.


I want to do things to this plane.....

Cookie_Monster

Great looking plane

View Profile

Silenceisbliss also, does anyone have any clue as to what this or if it's even real? I just saw it on some random page.

Isnt that from that terrible movie Stealth?! Not real btw.

Silenceisbliss
Quote:
Originally Posted by oztots
I think so yeah, what he built was a hughes aircraft (the XF-11 was designed by Howard Huges who was played by Leo in The Aviator) . And the gobsheen did crash one into the beverly hills mountain side in said movie

And the p-38 is beutiful. I just love it. The P-61 is the ugly big brother.
fixed for you

Rocketeer

View Profile wrote: »

Isnt that from that terrible movie Stealth?! Not real btw.

Tnx View Profile
wikipedia tells that it's F/A 37

Silenceisbliss

View Profile wrote: »

Isnt that from that terrible movie Stealth?! Not real btw.

oh right, forgot about that movie. sad now that its not real. savage looking thing

oztots

This is the connie they're going to stick the other ones into. It looks a bit corroded, and if i can find a pic of the landing gear that its sitting on front on its worth a look. Bit sideways for my liking!

FiSe

It is a nice airliner alright, like the Concord as well, but otherwise...modern airliners says nothing to me, just too plain seems to me, well apart from the schemes.

Slice

I always liked the way the comet had engines that integrated with the wing instead of sitting separately. Why is it with planes today this is no longer the case?

FOGOFUNK

Slice wrote: »

I always liked the way the comet had engines that integrated with the wing instead of sitting separately. Why is it with planes today this is no longer the case?

Access and engine swaps, and most engines can containe blade failure, whereas with integrated engines id say a blade would do serious damage.

oztots

FOGOFUNK wrote: »

Access and engine swaps, and most engines can containe blade failure, whereas with integrated engines id say a blade would do serious damage.

That configuration probably couldnt help with fuel lines either would it?

Turbulent Bill

Slice wrote: »

I always liked the way the comet had engines that integrated with the wing instead of sitting separately. Why is it with planes today this is no longer the case?

When the Comet came out they probably only had a single choice of engine, whereas modern aircraft can use multiple models (from GE, RR etc.) depending on the customer. It's much easier to redesign an engine pylon for this rather than a whole wing section!

The Comet is a beautiful looking plane though, especially considering how bad the Nimrod looks.

dfx-

A340-600 particularly when it looks like this...



The Aer Lingus commuter shown previously as worst..

ronnie3585

Beautiful!



Not so much.