Coolest Large Planes?

Author
Discussion

davepoth

29,395 posts

199 months

Thursday 1st December 2016
quotequote all
Stickyfinger said:
wolfracesonic said:
It'll be a Lincoln then! I'd heard of the Lincoln, didn't know exactly what they were. Was the nose glazing designed by a moonlighting Dornier guy?
It is armoured, they could not make curved armoured glass back then...they saw combat in Malaya with the Australians


Edited by Stickyfinger on Thursday 1st December 17:20
Argentina also bombed Argentinians with theirs.


Eric Mc

122,029 posts

265 months

Thursday 1st December 2016
quotequote all
wolfracesonic said:
It'll be a Lincoln then! I'd heard of the Lincoln, didn't know exactly what they were. Was the nose glazing designed by a moonlighting Dornier guy?
No, Everest Double Glazing.



Stickyfinger

8,429 posts

105 months

Thursday 1st December 2016
quotequote all

Sylvaforever

2,212 posts

98 months

Friday 2nd December 2016
quotequote all
Eric Mc said:
That's being very generous to the A380.
why don't you go try it and report back then.

HarryFlatters

4,203 posts

212 months

Friday 2nd December 2016
quotequote all
Eric Mc said:
Good job it never crashed. How was it disposed of?
No idea, suspect it was chopped up and buried in a desert somewhere. The reactor was never actually connected to anything, it was just put in the aircraft to measure the effectiveness of the shielding. There was an episode of "The Planes That Never Flew" dedicated to it, and I'd track it down if you can, it was a good watch.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_NB-36H

ukaskew

10,642 posts

221 months

Friday 2nd December 2016
quotequote all
XB70 said:
Others have beat me to it but would be remiss of me not to add my 2 cents given my forum name!

It's 2016, yet you can still look at that picture (which presumably is nearly 50 years old) and think it's from a far-off future.



Eric Mc

122,029 posts

265 months

Friday 2nd December 2016
quotequote all
Even though it was deemed obsolete even before it flew - and never entered production.

HoHoHo

14,987 posts

250 months

Friday 2nd December 2016
quotequote all
ukaskew said:
XB70 said:
Others have beat me to it but would be remiss of me not to add my 2 cents given my forum name!

It's 2016, yet you can still look at that picture (which presumably is nearly 50 years old) and think it's from a far-off future.
I'm pretty sure it can't pull high G in that configuration.............that is unless you want to redesign the wing profile hehe

What a great looking machine thumbup

Eric Mc

122,029 posts

265 months

Friday 2nd December 2016
quotequote all
It was a high altitude, high speed bomber. It wasn't designed to pull high Gs.

I also think it is a "cool" aeroplane - but it was designed for a role that disappeared before it flew.

ukaskew

10,642 posts

221 months

Friday 2nd December 2016
quotequote all
Eric Mc said:
Even though it was deemed obsolete even before it flew - and never entered production.
Whether it was any good (or relevant) is not the point in the context of my statement. Just look at it! Ask a kid to draw a plane from the future and it would probably look like that.

Or to put it another way, if that pulled up alongside the average transatlantic flight and you got the exact view in that photo, 99% of those on the flight would assume it's some futuristic secretive test aircraft, not a 60 year old relic.

Eric Mc

122,029 posts

265 months

Friday 2nd December 2016
quotequote all
I am sure you are right. That, of course, is down to people not understanding what the future needs of aerospace really were - including some of the top aeroplane designers of all time. Despite being futuristic looking, the XB-70 was actually BACKWARD in its concept. You could say the same with Concorde. Lovely aeroplane - wrong decision.

I am a huge fan of North American Aviation. They were probably the most forward looking aircraft producer of all time with some breath taking projects that were way ahead of their time -

X-15
F-86
F-100
A5 Vigilante

They also built the Apollo Command/Service Module and the Space Shuttle.

However, on occasion, what they built was not what was needed.

Ayahuasca

27,427 posts

279 months

Friday 2nd December 2016
quotequote all

Stickyfinger

8,429 posts

105 months

Friday 2nd December 2016
quotequote all

Ayahuasca

27,427 posts

279 months

Friday 2nd December 2016
quotequote all
Stickyfinger said:
Nice Tu-160.


Eric Mc

122,029 posts

265 months

Friday 2nd December 2016
quotequote all
Could do with a wash.

I like the spare luggage carrier. Probably bought from Halfordski.

Otispunkmeyer

12,593 posts

155 months

Friday 2nd December 2016
quotequote all
Ayahuasca said:
What is that? Looks like a prop from star wars pod racing!

Jakg

3,463 posts

168 months

Saturday 3rd December 2016
quotequote all
Stickyfinger said:
Ayahuasca said:
Nice Tu-160.
I feel like such a nerd pointing this out, but it's a Myasishchev M-4 "Bison"

Even more rediculous cargo:



The Tupolev Tu-160 is "Blackjack" - the swept-wing one in the centre:



My favourite would have to be the B36 though.

Ayahuasca

27,427 posts

279 months

Saturday 3rd December 2016
quotequote all
Jakg said:
I feel like such a nerd pointing this out, but it's a Myasishchev M-4 "Bison"

Even more rediculous cargo:



The Tupolev Tu-160 is "Blackjack" - the swept-wing one in the centre:



My favourite would have to be the B36 though.

Ayahuasca

27,427 posts

279 months

Saturday 3rd December 2016
quotequote all
Jakg said:
I feel like such a nerd pointing this out, but it's a Myasishchev M-4 "Bison"

Even more rediculous cargo:



The Tupolev Tu-160 is "Blackjack" - the swept-wing one in the centre:



My favourite would have to be the B36 though.
Look at the picture again, Grasshopper. See through the picture. Ignore the distraction. See the Tu-160.

hammo19

4,989 posts

196 months

Saturday 3rd December 2016
quotequote all
They did make some weird but curiously wonderful aeroplanes