At which time the soviet practice of crating up airplanes for future use became obsolete , as the planes that would have put air/land 2000 started coming into front line service. Up to that time , the Soviet airforce had near technical parity with the Nato Alliance, that the practice had some merit.
Rereading 633’s post , his view of staging may be different from mine , so it seems that my highjack may have been based on simply misreading what he stated.
I love the Turkey , but unless it was the Fulda gap or Vladivostok, I doubt that Frontal aviation would have met many of them in combat. But the thought of squadrons of Tomcats salvoing full loads of phoenix missiles into the heart of a soviet formation, brings out the christmas spirit in me.
Its better to give than to recieve.
Ah , but bombers drive Fighter design, which then has to be negated by the next gen Bomber, so they count , tell em I said so.
I know this is a personal opinion thread but how could anything compare to the “Buff” B-52? Seriously? Nothing is more beautiful than watching an airplane approaching 60, crabwalk into the wind while going down a runway. Watch Dr. Strangelove again to restore this love.
The second for me is “The Bear” Tupolev Tu-95. I have soft spot for turboprops, especially if it has 8 counter-rotating propellors, each of which blade tip breaking the sound barrier. Throughout the Cold War many NATO interceptors would come to use ear protection when called to escort these babies away from our airspace.
Last but not least, the “Big Stick” B-36 Peacemaker, was always one of my favorites.
You can have your favorites, but mine’s bigger than yours.
More seriously, the B-1B. I think it’s the last of the Cold War SAC bombers specifically developed to drop/launch nuclear warheads on the USSR. Plus, how can you not love a bigass bomber with swing wings?
Yes. Not sure where you’re going with that, since my caffeine intake has only just started. Are you thinking I should have hovered instead? Could have, I suppose; but with a 360 I could maintain my airspeed for my base and final legs.
OK, must have been an RAF bird. I have a brochure from the airshow with a Vulcan Bomber on it (not in the show). Not that I can find the damn thing. It keeps popping up from time to mock my filing skills.
I worked with a guy who had been a 3-headed-monster on a B-57. I got the impression from him that while it had a good record of performance, both as an attack bomber in Vietnam and as a reconaissance plane, it was not really well-loved by its crews: those engines sitting way out in the middle of the wings had a tendency to make flight control nearly impossible if one lost power.
(The high-altitude reconaissance version, with the extended wings making it look like a U-2 on steroids was an interesting development.)
(I am always curious why the FW-200 attracts so much attention. Commercial designs pushed into bomber service are routinely flops and the Kondor was not much of an exception. Its (scary, if limited) success against shipping was solely the result of having no opposition in the middle of the Atlantic. Once jeep carriers started sending Wildcats/Martletts out to defend the convoys, the Kondor was pretty much a waste of Reich fuel and manpower. I guess it does look sort of cool.)
I believe it also had a nasty tendency to break its back due to inadequate fuselage strength. It was basically useless for anything other than reconnisance, but it looks much more streamlined and elegant than things like the Liberator, Fortress, Ju-88 and so on.
Since nobody has submitted a plane from my favorite era of aviation, I will. My favorite bomber is the Ilya Mourometz designed by Igor Sikorsky, the world’s first four engine bomber as well as the first mass produced heavier than air bomber. First flown in 1913, about 80 or so were made if I recall correctly. They dropped a total of 65 tons of ordinance during WWI.
The long-distance commercial guy used to play football? And his career bombed?