Am I the only one who finds the 60s and 70s the most aesthetic era for military aircraft? Say what you will...

>teleports behind you
>nothing personal Diego

...

is that the sabre?

This guy comes up and slaps you're aerospace engineer in the ass, what do

...

Excellent combat record when sticking to non-dogfight roles. It was a shit dogfighter in the 60s and the pilots hated it with passion. That said it could indeed fly back home with a half a wing missing, so that does improve it's combat record

WWI was the perfect mix of past and future

No, its the Phantom.
>the pilots hated it with passion.
Source please, because I've heard the opposite.

I should clarify. The F-4 was a magnificent aircraft, but it was "hated" (if I can even use that word) as a dogfighter, it was never designed to be a dogfighter. It was a very fast very advanced aircraft with a "power-over-aerodynamics" attitude. It was made for shooting bombers down and in that role it was superb. You can see that in its weapons as well the Falcons and so on. Due to it's wing shape it had a stupendously large turning circle. So if your guns AIMs failed to take out the enemy in the initial pass you were in deep shit, but then again in a straight line it could outrun pretty much anything

anyone have the russian vs us air force meme

gotchu

...

To illustrate, the smaller is from an F-16 Falcon. The larger circle is from an F-4 Phantom. This is intended to demonstrate the minimum turning radius of both aircraft in comparison to each other. Also, while the F-4 technically has a higher top speed, the F-16 has better acceleration which is actually more important is most situations. The only area where the F-4 is definitely superior is in overall maximum payload that the plane is capable of carrying in terms of bombs. However, improvements to bombing accuracy make that essentially a non-issue as the F-16 would be able to hit more targets despite being able to carry fewer bombs.

Couldn't the F-4 carry the same targetting pods and weapons as the F-16?
Considering some nations like S Korea and Turkey still fly Phantoms, surely they've been through some type of modernization program.

Well yeah, it is entirely possible in most cases to take an older aircraft and upgrade its avionics, mainly by attaching extra sensors onto the plane as pods. Hell, the A-10's basically started off on the WW2 level in terms of electronic systems and they're now able to use modern smart munitions and data-links and such. My comment was more relation to the Vietnam war. At that point in time, it was still pretty hard to hit anything with accuracy from the air unless you were flying very low to the ground.

I was referring to your comment about the F-16 vs F-4. If I recall, the F-16 as it started out, was a lightweight fighter with barely any air to ground capability, and it was only later on throughout the 80's and 90's that they introduced the LANTIRN pods and other sensors and smart munitions. So technically, if you compared an original F-16A with an F-4G, the Phantom would win out on ground attack capability.

>If I recall, the F-16 as it started out, was a lightweight fighter with barely any air to ground capability

That was the original concept but the design went through some important changes before it was approved for mass production. The new plane needed to be able to replace the F-4 in the fighter-bomber role and it obviously couldn't have done that without at least some air-to-ground capability. There was no need to introduce another purely air-to-air fighter because the F-15 already filled that role.

B-but those p-planes weren't flown by Soviets...m-muh export models!

Arabs shouldn't count as pilots.

but sand people with american planes did bretty gud

see; iranians with their tomcats

Arabs=/= iranians

Take a look at saudi performance

they were export models.

Supercruised before it was a thing, capable of outclimbing an F-15, and manoeuvred better than any other fighter of the same period. Shame about the limited hardpoints and weak radar, though.

...

>Psst......nothing personnel.......ET

Unnhhhhh..........

Oh, is this the planefag thread?
Here's some stuff I've collected, mostly military aviation and related pdf's.
>mediafire.com/file/jb6twznzei5ttom/Illustrated_Guide_to_Modern_Fighters,_Bill_Gunston_2.zip

>mediafire.com/file/y686n4t8c7kbzte/AnX-29StoryV3.pdf

>mediafire.com/file/vx7l1kyhrr31v4m/Air-to-Air-Report-.pdf

>mediafire.com/file/ysjx9khpwbvg5vc/Strike_Fighters_air_to_air.pdf

>mediafire.com/file/bbhhi6hypk06xcq/Miniature_Uav_And_Future_Electronic_Warfare.pdf

>mediafire.com/file/2li1alrioe81hxa/Combat_System_Sensors.pdf

>No including "Revolt of the Majors."

You're not a real plane-fag until you've read it.

etd.auburn.edu/bitstream/handle/10415/595/MICHEL_III_55.pdf

Aardvark is love
Aardvark is life

fucking reagan man

This missile comes up to you in the bar and slaps you're planefu in the ass, what do

Keep in mind he's an all-aspect, HOBS capable IR tracking missile

youtube.com/watch?v=sh-9uZjg1Tg

A

V U L C A N

R

O

UNNF

THICKER

I TRIED SO HARD
AND GOT SO FAR

beat me to it. Oh, what could have been. The F-5 deserved to evolve, and this was so meant to be. The most beautiful aircraft ever produced imho

*blocks your path*

>AIM-9 and AIM-7 missiles are going to be used until 2050
feels good man

Evolving the F-5 kills the entire point of the F-5.

*blocks your funding*

Not one dollar for a non-bomber.

DELET THIS

Walah

*destroys your b29s and makes you too scared to use your b36's*

heh not so fast...kiddo

For prop planes, nothing will ever beat late war warplanes, especially anything with bare aluminum camo

However, I wholeheartedly think that modern Gen 5 fighters are the best looking warplanes of them all

>The F-5 deserved to evolve
Oh but user it did.

It kept going and hasn't stopped yet.

The F-35 has grown on me.

AESTHETICS

Wrong image, mon ami

>posts solid argument as if it was a meme

Yeah...

Oh, it's beautiful

Why do Japs have the best paint jobs?

...

th-the perfection... user I can't take it

And one more

Ok ok, just two more

...

actually I thought the FA-18 was based off of the F-16 frame, not trying to debate I just could have sworn I remember that from one of my scores of military aviation encyclopedias

...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_YF-17

No- F-18 was an outgrowth of the YF-17.

smdh I knew that jesus time for bed thank you fellow air heads

This is bullshit. Just because something was created in the past doesn't mean it belongs on Veeky Forums, otherwise we'd be discussing "historical" video games, music, movies, and all the other shit that we have boards for.

But we do discuss all that shit.

>its another "Veeky Forums is only for historical events" autist
bet you shitpost the rare prehistoric threads too, you incredible goober

Veeky Forums is for historical events and (unfortunately) humanities. If you want to discuss military aircraft or 1980s anime, you should go to /k/ or /a/.

>you should go to /k/ or /a/.
make me
>1980's anime
literally what

>literally what
25 year rule. The idiotic argument you're using would mean that anything that was created before May 30th 1992 would be fair game for discussion on Veeky Forums. This is not the case because Veeky Forums is for historical figures and events, not media or military equipment.

says who, the incredibly vague, self contradicting and poorly written sticky which is never enforced?
please suckstart a shotgun you geek, we have threads on historical weaponry and armor all the time.

It's pretty clear, if you can read English.

>All images and discussion should pertain to the humanities: history, philosophy, religion, law, classical artwork, archeology, anthropology, ancient languages, etc.

You can suck my cock before you leave though.

>etc
including historical items and paraphernalia so you can suck MY dick and choke on it, faggot.

You just got baited by me son. You are forever and ever my bitch. If there was a history book of bitches you would be in it and I would be glorified as your master. And no take backs. You lose. Trolled. Bow and kiss the ring motherfucker.

Actually that would be the mig 21.

explain the pakis then
>top of the line american hardware every time
>lose to planes that were designed for acrobatics

Pakis were directly trained by americans themselves.

>*glomps your f-86*

You're complaining about a thread people are enjoying? Why not turn your unwarranted rage toward a thread that deserves it like some idiotic /pol/ thread? Fuck off.

Folland Gnat a CUTE

This is a 2nd-3rd gen plane page. 4-5th gen ugly shitboxes not allowed.

>Eagle
>ugly shitbox
delet this

>However, I wholeheartedly think that modern Gen 5 fighters are the best looking warplanes of them all
Shit taste famalam. 3rd gen best gen

"no"

Right-o, old chap! This, right here!

sexiest bird flying by

It's the ugliest 4 gen. However Flankers are pure curvy sex.

>F-15
>ugly
>posts "lol broken neck" plane as a superior example
motherffucker i am warning you

Double rudders, canards, and lifting body fuselages ruined the aesthetics of 4th gen aircraft.

>Double rudders, canards, and lifting body fuselages ruined the aesthetics of 4th gen aircraft.
how can you be so wrong.
cigar bodies, non area ruled airframes and powerplants that can't push an aircraft past mach 1 are gay btw

Pure sleekness trumps any alienesque design feature. 2-3rd gen aircraft have the perfect combination between conventional beauty, sleekness and deiselpunk brute force.

That image doesn't apply to me. I troll because watching autists fight against positions I don't actually hold gives me a boner. And you make it so damn easy. Just keep feeding me please.

This isn't sleek to you?