A lot of the aircraft featured were one off conversions of an existing design done to fulfill a specific purpose. Such aircraft will inevitably be aesthetically unpleasing, odd looking or ugly. But just because they do not meet your definition of being aesthetic does not mean the aircraft should be derided, as you do. If an aircraft efficiently does what it was designed or converted for, why does it need to be aesthetically pleasing? It does not!!
We were on project Tacit Blue, aka Orca. Tacit Blue was only a demonstrator. There are many different systems being tested here. One is the radar cross section of curved surfaces. It did do it's job.
There is more to Tacit Vlue than hurting the eye. It was a stealth demonstrator using (not flat, but) curved lines. If you look closely, you see technical similarities with the Northrop B2.
Since some prop driven aircraft were featured, why was the Blohm & Voss BV141 omitted? A weird asymmetrical aircraft that, surprisingly, possessed very good flying characteristics, but looked as if its designers were abusing some weapons grade recreational pharmaceuticals ...
In an unofficial trial vs the E-3 The Nimrod AEW detected only 30% of the targets detected but the e-3. Date entry was slow, periodically the operators had to be told “Hands up” stop entering data, the computer needed to catch up, shoddy engineering to produce another all British failure.
The Northrop Tacit Blue approach to stealth was to make it so ugly that everyone just looked away.
IL-40 looks super cool!
Love the Tacit Blue.
Gloster Meteor was not really ugly - at least not the early ones. The Britten-Norman Trilander is a fantastic aircraft, just like the Islander.
A lot of the aircraft featured were one off conversions of an existing design done to fulfill a specific purpose. Such aircraft will inevitably be aesthetically unpleasing, odd looking or ugly. But just because they do not meet your definition of being aesthetic does not mean the aircraft should be derided, as you do. If an aircraft efficiently does what it was designed or converted for, why does it need to be aesthetically pleasing? It does not!!
We were on project Tacit Blue, aka Orca.
Tacit Blue was only a demonstrator. There are many different systems being tested here. One is the radar cross section of curved surfaces.
It did do it's job.
IL-40 looks like something from Star Wars.
There is more to Tacit Vlue than hurting the eye. It was a stealth demonstrator using (not flat, but) curved lines. If you look closely, you see technical similarities with the Northrop B2.
Wow!
These planes are weird,but innovative!
We were on project Jabber Jaw (X-32). The plane gots it nickname due the the movable intake jaw.
Nimrod is a good looking plane.
Since some prop driven aircraft were featured, why was the Blohm & Voss BV141 omitted? A weird asymmetrical aircraft that, surprisingly, possessed very good flying characteristics, but looked as if its designers were abusing some weapons grade recreational pharmaceuticals ...
The comments on aesthetics indicate a profound lack of knowledge. Although I do like some of your choices. Thanks!
I remember the Boeing/McDonnell ugly fighter and knew they were screwed!
the aew2 radar system had no blind spots unlike the awacs
the nimrod itself did have a decent amount of issues, tho
In an unofficial trial vs the E-3 The Nimrod AEW detected only 30% of the targets detected but the e-3. Date entry was slow, periodically the operators had to be told “Hands up” stop entering data, the computer needed to catch up, shoddy engineering to produce another all British failure.
@@donmunro5320 Seem to remember fuel was used to cool computers.
Zubr bomber. Thanks me later.
This dude does not know how to pronounce livery😂😂😂
Wasted my time...