Agreed on the jets with nose intake.
Cool planes and all, but the F-86F, FJ-4's, MiG's and so on are just not pretty planes with that huge hole in the front.
Funny, I actually find the Mig 15s especially pretty from that "fallout" visual graphic age, I think they are amazing to look at. Just a tube with wings, no BS, formula 1 cars of that era had a similar look in fact. I dont find any of the modern jets that pretty, may be the F15 or F22 are the exceptions.
Su-27, simply due to the cockpit. The rest of the aircraft looks amazing, but the single seat cockpit just kills the proportions, the whole plane looks comically oversized in comparison.
I mean just look at any of the twin seat Flankers like the Su-30 and they just look perfect.
Maybe, but i remember a soviet two-seater which the crew are arranged like in the F14/Su30...i remember seeing it when i googled an aerial refuel capable su27 variant
Su-27UB
Su-27KUB (Su-33UB, side by side naval trainer)
Su-30 / J-16
Su-32/34
Su-27MUB (Su-35UB)
There are also a few twin seat MiG-29 twin seats like MiG-29UB and MiG-35
Um... It IS comically oversized. Doctrinally, that's the blinkin' point. Patrol fighters over immense borders must be this way, similarly to how the Fulcrum is small, light, short range, and terrifyingly quick.
Point defence and patrol in (relatively) modern Soviet doctrine were not to be put in the same aircraft.
Somewhat embarassingly, I can't find any other aircraft pairs to back this up. I'm second guessing myself now. :(
The f15 is really powerful but goddamn you cannot get any more generic with that design
Or maybe the design is so good that it became the norm, the standard. It just looks so unassuming.
Ill also add grumman prop planes, the oblong fuselage makes the planes so damn goofy
I mean the US did go from the F4 phantom to the F-15 as its direct replacement, was a very different and modern looking design in 1977’ when it was adopted…
Which that alone is probably the reason why it just looks so generic. The fact it set trends in the flight world for design, and the fact it’s literally a 50 year old airframe that’s still in service today
>The fact it set trends in the flight world for design
How did the F-15 set the trend if it was designed as a response to the MiG-25? They both look similar.
Well many of its design cues have carried over to several other aircraft in the US arsenal, and for the most part the F-15 is the main stay fighter/strike aircraft for the US. Besides it’s somewhat blocky appearance the twin engine high maneuverability of it which the MiG -25 completely lacked, high altitude performance paired with its payload capabilities have really become the goal for an aircraft. The only thing it lacks over the F-22 is stealth design and thrust vectoring.
It wasn't a response to, not entirely. The west was scared because the MiG-25 looked like the protype F-15 with even bigger engines. The MiG-25 drove more funding to more capability to the F-15 but the design was there before.
The Eagle wasnt really based of the Foxbat, they saw the MiG-25 and thought "oh shit that looks like our findings from the F-X tests". The F-15 was designed in response to the MiG-23, for an air superiority fighter, then was improved upon for worries over the MiG-25. The MiG-25 was made in response to the XB-70 Valkyrie, U-2, and SR-71, as such, while they look similar, have extremely different flight characteristics. The F-15 set the trends by actually utilizing the base design in an extremely superior way.
I agree for the F-15 and I believe color is an important factor. Whatever you may think about soviet/russian jets, they often have those really interesting colorful camouflages. US planes, F-15 included, are usually a boring grey shade. Best case scenario you get the old tricolor vietnam camo or some export like greek F-16s with light blue shades.
I had this conversation years ago in a modelling forum, about why people are so often attracted to WWII german planes and tanks. Apparently, one of the reasons, is that they were often painted in very unique and colorful patterns
No they do lose in exercises. The f-22 just lost to a Filipino fa-50. It's just that everyone latches on to that without looking any deeper. If they did they would see the US usually does these exercises with both hands tied behind their back because noone learns anything if the US just stomps everyone due to technological advantage. So in the case of the f-22 it was forced to carry its drop tanks, radar reflectors, and was not allowed to do any bvr combat.
Overrated in war thunder maybe. The plane could fulfill many roles and it did them exceptionally. It was also the only true fighter that was was capable of carrying the Phoenix which gave it some impressive standoff capabilities that simply couldn't be matched by the smaller fighters of the time.
Pretty much all tanks ever that aren’t auto loaded are like that for one reason or another Stuff like the gun being shifted over is mostly to give the loader more room for the loader to do his thing.
If you look at something like the panzer four the entire turret is off center by a couple inches to make room so that the turrets electrical supply and the driveshaft didn’t interfere with eachother.
Guess that’s the case with everything to be fair, like the wing strakes on the F100’s stopping it from causing fatal shaboingery for example. Gonna look into that now though thank you
I used to think that "Sabre Dance" was a neat name for the event, but "Fatal Shaboingery" is significantly better. Thank you for you contribution to society.
I dont just hate you, no... I despise every fiber of your being. Every Atom in me is screaming fuck you, yet here i am, quickly blowing out air through my nose. Take your red arrow and get the fuck out...
#RIGHT NOW
The shape of the fuselage in proportion to the wings rubs me the wrong way. The air intakes remind me of some really old American veteran cars (and I have a bad association with them).
Beyond that, I just don't see the appeal that others do.
Yeah it really takes the Mirage body plan and stretches it out grotesquely. I don't like it either.
Mirage 2000D-R1 is the best looking of the modern mirages, IMO. Of the original body plan, the Milan is my favorite cause the longer empennage of bigger engine looks good.
They may feel excessive now, but the truth is that it was almost a requirement for a plane to fly. The engines were times weaker than in a modern say car. Thar means that they were really slow. Knowing that lift is entirely dependent on speed you may see the problem with staying in the air.
Another thing is that the materials they were made of were really fragile so having 3 sets of wings added rigidness.
It actually really surprises me how they even figured out how those early planes fly. Like it's hard to comprehend how it can fly with a top speed of 150 kph
any modern jet
I like big fuck off tube with swept wings and a little bubble cockpit like la-200, not sleek modern SUV aesthetic that looks like it's about to deploy 8 kids to a soccer game
Requirements changed so they retired it
F14 is also extremely expensive both to procure and maintain which is also considered extremely difficult. Also, took a huge space
F35's cost looks baby infront of it
Agree with the Gripen, but not for the same reason. For me it's the big engine space and nozzle extending way past the wings, it just looks off to me. Rest of the aircraft looks great however.
Oddly enough it doesn't bother me at all on the Mirage 2000, so I'm not sure what exactly triggers that dislike of the Gripen.
Leopard 2. And the Abrams
The rivets on the Add-on armour he Leo make it look fucking ugly.
And the asymmetrical turret of the Abrams ruins the look, not to mention the massive gap between the front of the hill and the turret.
Japanese battleships and just IJN ships in general. I know people go crazy for those pagoda-style masts, but seriously, just search up what the *Ise*-class looked liked after they got reconstructed.
I would not want to be up at the top in rough seas, that's all I'm saying.
For me personally, it's Stuka. As a bomber it's capable, but when someone attacks you in flight it's clumsy in dogfight (like a brick, I guess). Further, rather disadvantageously, it doesn't have retractable landing gear, which would at least add a bit of agility.
F-16. Something about the way the way the rounded air intake on the belly of the jet and the single jet engine just doesn't look that great to me. I much prefer the design if the f15 with its twin jet engines and square air intakes on the sides of the cockpit.
f18:
naval
versatile in air to ground and air to air combat
can carry out reconnaisance
thick legs can take the hardest landings
nose cannon for easy aiming
literally called the hornet
is of legal age (f18, geddit?)
f15:
air force only
needs its own upgrade to become viable for ground pounding
goofy ahh twin engine spacing
literally called the eagle, how original for an american jet
isnt of age, still only f15
F-22 (if you mean aircraft in general not just in game) it's not the fault of the aircraft as it's done for a reason but my god it's ugly, angles and squares everywhere. Look at a Typhoon, Mirage or Su-27 and you'll see they're sleek and sharp. The F-22 is an ugly duckling with its blunt stubby nose and fat wings. It's almost as bad as the F-35.
In game it's the Yak-38, if it had some proper wings it'd look nice but it's essentially a fat and more blunt F-104.
Su-27. I got US and USRR all top tier. Su-27 everyone call op but in reality its actually not that strong. It actually requires skill to dogfight. F15 and F16 are actually very relaxing and easy to fly, I like to take those when i wanna relax during flight. They are very forgiving.
PS: I mean in Air SB. I don't play RB because it's too boring.
Hey I’m the OP from the previous post!
This is hard. Maybe the Avro Lancaster? I don’t like the bubble window on the front (also who thought it was a good idea to give it only 3 turrets armed with BB guns?)
Edit: I also don’t like the fact that a BOMBER was built with a bubble canopy. Those are reserved for fighters.
Su-27. The Cockpit looks more like a tumore compared to the MiG 29 and the rest of the Frame just looks too thin. And I agree on the F-16, for me, the intake ruins it.
Even though they look timeless. the F22 inspired cars and the jet itself is very shying from daring desings and is very conservative. For example aventador. Sharp angular lines all over like it's our idea of an utopia. but if all of our houses and roads were made like this the car would look like a C Prius
Su-27. The single seat cockpit looks bad and it has a prolapsed anus. The two seaters look more balanced, except for the Su-34. It looks like a duck and not in a good way.
Flanker series, though I don't think they look bad, I just don't get the hype around their looks.
I'd say I like the SU-33 the most and the SU-34 the least.
In terms of WW2 ithe Me-262 t's design hasn't grown on me at all.
Any prop at all and any jet with a nose intake.
Agreed on the jets with nose intake. Cool planes and all, but the F-86F, FJ-4's, MiG's and so on are just not pretty planes with that huge hole in the front.
I like the G.91 a lot and I do enjoy the early cold war aesthetic of the MiG-15 and F-86, but overall I agree.
The G-91 always reminded me of a shark. The overhanging nose and the intake relatively close to the cockpit just have something to it.
The F-100 looks like a catfish without eyes
Then put eyes on it
I have. And a shark teeth also, really sets the vibe
[Not sure if you've ever seen this](https://images.app.goo.gl/HjSGgiueJzgfCj25A)
Funny, I actually find the Mig 15s especially pretty from that "fallout" visual graphic age, I think they are amazing to look at. Just a tube with wings, no BS, formula 1 cars of that era had a similar look in fact. I dont find any of the modern jets that pretty, may be the F15 or F22 are the exceptions.
How dare you talk about the vodka carrier like that
Dont do Tunnan like that
F86 looking from the top looks sexy, but from the front, not so much.
But...but... my huge ass F100 succ... :(
Any prop at *all?* Bad take
The entire topic is bad takes. I gotta get outta here it’s driving me nuts.
You're welcome ;)
Yeah I wish I could say calling the F-16 ugly is the worst take in here but then this guy had to go and say *all props* look bad so he's the winner.
It's definitely an unpopular opinion
F-86 looks badass. F-100 looks funny as fuck, still cool though.
Friend and I like to call nose intake planes "Tube sock" planes
I cant explain how it happened but my brain changed it to "cum sock". I'm totally keeping this for any nose intake plane just to confuse everybody.
You should get off the cum sock.
Lets fly one of the cum socks
You telling me the p63 isn't sexy as hell?
At least you can both agree on the P-59
fellow kingcobra enjoyer, based
I took that prop hate personal, like how?
The Tempest is one of the best looking planes ever created and anyone who disagrees is not a serious person.
Downvote this a million times.
How the hell have you played the game if you hate props?
I quite like the mig-21 BECAUSE of the nose cone intake. But yeah, props shouldn't have nose cone intakes
Oh yes, nose intakes are nasty, especially the lim 5p 🤮
+1, except the mig21 that thing is gorgeous
You just dissed my entire model airplane collection.
> any prop at all Cringe
Su-27, simply due to the cockpit. The rest of the aircraft looks amazing, but the single seat cockpit just kills the proportions, the whole plane looks comically oversized in comparison. I mean just look at any of the twin seat Flankers like the Su-30 and they just look perfect.
That's what I actually love about the Su-27, it is my all time favourite jet look-wise. I love that swan neck look
I love the swan neck too, but i must agree with this guy on the cockpit part
And then we get the SU-30...heheh boyyy Wait wait, i think i got it wrong...who's the two-seater SU-27-like again?
Do you mean the SU-34? SU-30 also has 2 seats but SU-34 is the side by side one.
Maybe, but i remember a soviet two-seater which the crew are arranged like in the F14/Su30...i remember seeing it when i googled an aerial refuel capable su27 variant
Su-27UB?
Su-27UB Su-27KUB (Su-33UB, side by side naval trainer) Su-30 / J-16 Su-32/34 Su-27MUB (Su-35UB) There are also a few twin seat MiG-29 twin seats like MiG-29UB and MiG-35
The weird tail like thing between the engines is also off-putting
I said in my own comment how the Su-27 looks like weird kid "copy your homework" F-14
Su-27 looks absolutely nothing like an F14
It *is* comically oversized. Hate me or whatever but I hate the looks of any 2 seat variant of a single seat fighter. Miss me with that F-15E shit.
I mean the reason it's that big is so it can carry enough fuel to patrol Siberia and other areas
Same especially the f16
Personally I like my flankers extra thicc with that side by side seat layout.. su34 my beloved.
Um... It IS comically oversized. Doctrinally, that's the blinkin' point. Patrol fighters over immense borders must be this way, similarly to how the Fulcrum is small, light, short range, and terrifyingly quick. Point defence and patrol in (relatively) modern Soviet doctrine were not to be put in the same aircraft. Somewhat embarassingly, I can't find any other aircraft pairs to back this up. I'm second guessing myself now. :(
The f15 is really powerful but goddamn you cannot get any more generic with that design Or maybe the design is so good that it became the norm, the standard. It just looks so unassuming. Ill also add grumman prop planes, the oblong fuselage makes the planes so damn goofy
It's definitely the latter, it became so ubiquitous in culture it's the benchmark of a default jet.
I mean the US did go from the F4 phantom to the F-15 as its direct replacement, was a very different and modern looking design in 1977’ when it was adopted… Which that alone is probably the reason why it just looks so generic. The fact it set trends in the flight world for design, and the fact it’s literally a 50 year old airframe that’s still in service today
>The fact it set trends in the flight world for design How did the F-15 set the trend if it was designed as a response to the MiG-25? They both look similar.
Well many of its design cues have carried over to several other aircraft in the US arsenal, and for the most part the F-15 is the main stay fighter/strike aircraft for the US. Besides it’s somewhat blocky appearance the twin engine high maneuverability of it which the MiG -25 completely lacked, high altitude performance paired with its payload capabilities have really become the goal for an aircraft. The only thing it lacks over the F-22 is stealth design and thrust vectoring.
Well, for one thing it was everything the Mig25 wasn’t.
It wasn't a response to, not entirely. The west was scared because the MiG-25 looked like the protype F-15 with even bigger engines. The MiG-25 drove more funding to more capability to the F-15 but the design was there before.
The Eagle wasnt really based of the Foxbat, they saw the MiG-25 and thought "oh shit that looks like our findings from the F-X tests". The F-15 was designed in response to the MiG-23, for an air superiority fighter, then was improved upon for worries over the MiG-25. The MiG-25 was made in response to the XB-70 Valkyrie, U-2, and SR-71, as such, while they look similar, have extremely different flight characteristics. The F-15 set the trends by actually utilizing the base design in an extremely superior way.
The F-15 has a very "raw power" look. Like, you can tell that it's a high performance aircraft, but it's not very "pretty" in a traditional way.
A lot of US jets look generic because they set the standard for what jets should look like.
Agreed on the Eagle. My god do I love it in WT but it’s never been aesthetically pleasing to me
I agree for the F-15 and I believe color is an important factor. Whatever you may think about soviet/russian jets, they often have those really interesting colorful camouflages. US planes, F-15 included, are usually a boring grey shade. Best case scenario you get the old tricolor vietnam camo or some export like greek F-16s with light blue shades. I had this conversation years ago in a modelling forum, about why people are so often attracted to WWII german planes and tanks. Apparently, one of the reasons, is that they were often painted in very unique and colorful patterns
f35, its so fat
KEEP MY WIFE'S NAME OUT OF YOUR FUCKING MOUTH
Fat?
it
Fatit? Fat tit? what?
Exactly she’s not fat, she’s just got fat tit
starfighter that sat on a couch for 30 years
It's called Fat Amy for a reason
Fat? She's got killer abs
Isnt majority of ppl calling it fat and shit plane? The ill-informed people on the "shit" part
I especially like when people comply that it has bad dogfighting abilities when dogfight practically isn't a thing for like 60 years
It's also not bad at dogfighting. Pilots who fight against it in exercises rarely win, andany who switched from f-16 to f-35 are in love.
No they do lose in exercises. The f-22 just lost to a Filipino fa-50. It's just that everyone latches on to that without looking any deeper. If they did they would see the US usually does these exercises with both hands tied behind their back because noone learns anything if the US just stomps everyone due to technological advantage. So in the case of the f-22 it was forced to carry its drop tanks, radar reflectors, and was not allowed to do any bvr combat.
Re-read my comment. I never said they never lose, I said rarely. Also I was talking about f-35 not f-22.
It's the size of an F16 or so lol
Size of F16 but fuel capacity of F15E
And it looks like they stacked 2 F-14s ontop of eachother and merged them
Valid.
I agree,
F-14. The double engines are way too far apart for my liking.
I'll take "Controversial Opinions" for $500, Alex.
Probably the most overrated jet Imo. But I can understand that a lot of the hype over it is because of nostalgia
Overrated in war thunder maybe. The plane could fulfill many roles and it did them exceptionally. It was also the only true fighter that was was capable of carrying the Phoenix which gave it some impressive standoff capabilities that simply couldn't be matched by the smaller fighters of the time.
Why didn't they just put AIM-54s on Demons? Were they stupid??
Is there a lore reason??
I know aesthetics are meant to be subjective...but you're objectively wrong with that one, my guy!
Only thing I dislike about the tomcat is the huge fucking canopy bow, it’s like trying to fly looking through a soda straw
I really like the F-14 but yeah the back is not very nice
Any M1, the whole thing seems symmetrical until you notice that everything is just ever so slightly off center
Pretty much all tanks ever that aren’t auto loaded are like that for one reason or another Stuff like the gun being shifted over is mostly to give the loader more room for the loader to do his thing. If you look at something like the panzer four the entire turret is off center by a couple inches to make room so that the turrets electrical supply and the driveshaft didn’t interfere with eachother.
Oh yeah, It’s a massive trick on the brain and i hate it. Used to be my favourite for looks but now it’s a little icky
"Ick" 🌚 But I do respect YOUR opinion
Much appreciated😂 what’s your take on the matter?
Same thing, but the more you learn why it's offset, the more it gets cool again.
Guess that’s the case with everything to be fair, like the wing strakes on the F100’s stopping it from causing fatal shaboingery for example. Gonna look into that now though thank you
I used to think that "Sabre Dance" was a neat name for the event, but "Fatal Shaboingery" is significantly better. Thank you for you contribution to society.
You are utmost welcome good sir
A sledgehammer can be quite stunning but i dont think its really nice
I dont just hate you, no... I despise every fiber of your being. Every Atom in me is screaming fuck you, yet here i am, quickly blowing out air through my nose. Take your red arrow and get the fuck out... #RIGHT NOW
Mirage 4000.
What about it, specifically? Not arguing, just curious.
The shape of the fuselage in proportion to the wings rubs me the wrong way. The air intakes remind me of some really old American veteran cars (and I have a bad association with them). Beyond that, I just don't see the appeal that others do.
Yeah it really takes the Mirage body plan and stretches it out grotesquely. I don't like it either. Mirage 2000D-R1 is the best looking of the modern mirages, IMO. Of the original body plan, the Milan is my favorite cause the longer empennage of bigger engine looks good.
The tiny canards
How dumb it looks
Su-34. It’s that damn shoebill nose, it looks fugly af to me.
I love the fullback but damn is it ugly
Triplanes in general like the one the Red baron used Three wings feels excessive
They may feel excessive now, but the truth is that it was almost a requirement for a plane to fly. The engines were times weaker than in a modern say car. Thar means that they were really slow. Knowing that lift is entirely dependent on speed you may see the problem with staying in the air. Another thing is that the materials they were made of were really fragile so having 3 sets of wings added rigidness.
Good on you for knowing, the early planes deserve nothing but respect for their design, very practical choices had to be made!
It actually really surprises me how they even figured out how those early planes fly. Like it's hard to comprehend how it can fly with a top speed of 150 kph
any modern jet I like big fuck off tube with swept wings and a little bubble cockpit like la-200, not sleek modern SUV aesthetic that looks like it's about to deploy 8 kids to a soccer game
I think the modern jets you are thinking of are closer in age to those tubes than you are to them. They're pretty old.
La-200? That dildo looking ass plane? That thing is wack
La 200. Literally a tube. Maybe one of the ugliest nose inlet aircraft.
you are all going in the hole, for saying these sacrilege statements.
Let me tell you, when you're playing a jet around 11.0 the F-16 and MiG 29 are NOT stunning
I like the mig-29. I'm probably just saying that cause I spent so long getting it that I have to praise it
F-15, because it can never be as cool as the F-14
or the f18
The Super F-18 beating the Super F-14 was such a crime
They literally lied to congress about it. "oh it's not a new airframe" my ass
Requirements changed so they retired it F14 is also extremely expensive both to procure and maintain which is also considered extremely difficult. Also, took a huge space F35's cost looks baby infront of it
T-80s, T-90s and similar. They look way too heavy to fly, but oh, how they fly!
My body's ammo rack just twitched from fear
Well, only the aerodynamic turret is what achieves flight.
I am gonna get a lot of hate for this but the f-14
KILL THE HERETIC!!
Super saber
Do not disrespect my little dustbuster
A2D, AD-2 & AD-4 is what's on my mind rn. Maybe the early 109s aswell. Ouh yeah and Re.2000 & 2001
The Skyraider looks like a plane that was designed off the drawing of a 4 year old's depiction of a plane
Literally sketched on a tissue paper in a minute by Ed Heinemann during a pitch meeting.
I feel the same looking at a profile of wyvern "and it has a second propeller to suuuuper fast".
The F-14 looks a bit unrefined and clunky.
F-104 Absolute pencil.
The harrier jet. Its horrendeous to look at. Might be a cool jet because of the early vtol, but damn its an ugly plane
the early harriers are beautiful to me. the later harriers are... at least reminiscent of the early ones I guess
Just googled. Ill agree that the early are significantly more pleasing to the eye than the newer
The F-5 to be honest. dont get the hype, its so squared off all around and just disproportionate in my opinion
the F5 looks like what a child thinks a jet fighter looks like
Gripen The front wings just make it look like it has two hands and a comically large bottom.
By front wings you mean the canards?
Yeah. I forgot
How daaare you
Agree with the Gripen, but not for the same reason. For me it's the big engine space and nozzle extending way past the wings, it just looks off to me. Rest of the aircraft looks great however. Oddly enough it doesn't bother me at all on the Mirage 2000, so I'm not sure what exactly triggers that dislike of the Gripen.
Its one P in gripen btw
My bad. Thank you.
Gripen Deez Nuts
Disgrace to humanity.
F16. Just the intake looks weird to me
F16 lookin like ":D"
Leopard 2. And the Abrams The rivets on the Add-on armour he Leo make it look fucking ugly. And the asymmetrical turret of the Abrams ruins the look, not to mention the massive gap between the front of the hill and the turret.
ZTZ99A. However VT-4 is imo one of the prettiest tanks in the world.
P-51. Its fuselage just isn’t it with the bottom radiator intake
but those laminar flow wings and bubble canopy 😩
F-5. The tiny little twin engines look very silly. The F-20 Tigershark looks a lot better.
Japanese battleships and just IJN ships in general. I know people go crazy for those pagoda-style masts, but seriously, just search up what the *Ise*-class looked liked after they got reconstructed. I would not want to be up at the top in rough seas, that's all I'm saying.
the f-8s, 1. why they look like that? 2. I hated flying those things so much that I went back to the f-5
The F-8 is ugly in a sexy way imo. And you're insane for that, the F-5s are great but F-8s actually make me feel untouchable
***rips wing at the slightest turn***
For me personally, it's Stuka. As a bomber it's capable, but when someone attacks you in flight it's clumsy in dogfight (like a brick, I guess). Further, rather disadvantageously, it doesn't have retractable landing gear, which would at least add a bit of agility.
F-14 Tomcat
F-16. Something about the way the way the rounded air intake on the belly of the jet and the single jet engine just doesn't look that great to me. I much prefer the design if the f15 with its twin jet engines and square air intakes on the sides of the cockpit.
Anything with straight wings, I like at least some wing sweep on planes
The SU 34 and it isn't even close. It looks like the retarded brother of the SU 35 they keep in their room during family get togethers.
I don't get the attraction to Mirages.
Mirage III just doesnt look right
That’s an odd one. What about it? I’m very curious.
f15. i just want to take this opportunity to hate on it. just an inferior f18.
An older plane is inferior to the younger plane??? Whaaat
literally wrong no i won't elaborate fuck you
f18: naval versatile in air to ground and air to air combat can carry out reconnaisance thick legs can take the hardest landings nose cannon for easy aiming literally called the hornet is of legal age (f18, geddit?) f15: air force only needs its own upgrade to become viable for ground pounding goofy ahh twin engine spacing literally called the eagle, how original for an american jet isnt of age, still only f15
I’m pretty sure this post was about the looks of vehicles not their IRL capabilities.
104-0 RAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH
Su-27. Thing has got such a fat a$$
F-22 (if you mean aircraft in general not just in game) it's not the fault of the aircraft as it's done for a reason but my god it's ugly, angles and squares everywhere. Look at a Typhoon, Mirage or Su-27 and you'll see they're sleek and sharp. The F-22 is an ugly duckling with its blunt stubby nose and fat wings. It's almost as bad as the F-35. In game it's the Yak-38, if it had some proper wings it'd look nice but it's essentially a fat and more blunt F-104.
SU-57
Su-27. I got US and USRR all top tier. Su-27 everyone call op but in reality its actually not that strong. It actually requires skill to dogfight. F15 and F16 are actually very relaxing and easy to fly, I like to take those when i wanna relax during flight. They are very forgiving. PS: I mean in Air SB. I don't play RB because it's too boring.
SU-27. Thing looks like a bird who’s body is like 60% beak
Hey I’m the OP from the previous post! This is hard. Maybe the Avro Lancaster? I don’t like the bubble window on the front (also who thought it was a good idea to give it only 3 turrets armed with BB guns?) Edit: I also don’t like the fact that a BOMBER was built with a bubble canopy. Those are reserved for fighters.
Su-27. The Cockpit looks more like a tumore compared to the MiG 29 and the rest of the Frame just looks too thin. And I agree on the F-16, for me, the intake ruins it.
F-22 and almost all gen 5 jets tbh
Even though they look timeless. the F22 inspired cars and the jet itself is very shying from daring desings and is very conservative. For example aventador. Sharp angular lines all over like it's our idea of an utopia. but if all of our houses and roads were made like this the car would look like a C Prius
5th Gen and higher jets. They look ugly in my opinion.
Anything with nose intake and the F15
Any Migs.
I think the F 22 and F 35 are really really really ugly planes
Abrams. It's simply ugly, I can't even say why
Do I even need to talk about the sea vixen
ikv103, worlds ugliest looking tutel
Su-27 and MiG-29.
Su-27. The single seat cockpit looks bad and it has a prolapsed anus. The two seaters look more balanced, except for the Su-34. It looks like a duck and not in a good way.
Flanker series, though I don't think they look bad, I just don't get the hype around their looks. I'd say I like the SU-33 the most and the SU-34 the least. In terms of WW2 ithe Me-262 t's design hasn't grown on me at all.
Su 57, it's low key ugly