The bulges are one of the reasons I like them. I just think the G and K look like "war birds" and not some pretty lil racer, and that is why I think they are the best looking. Especially from the front.
Best looking WW2 fighter
- Thread starter markstuk
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The bulges are one of the reasons I like them. I just think the G and K look like "war birds" and not some pretty lil racer, and that is why I think they are the best looking. Especially from the front.
GregP
Major
Honorable Mention: Fiat G.56. They only made ONE, but it "fixed" most of the Bf 109's shortcommings.
https://www.artscale.eu/out/pictures/z1/48A21771-F3C2-46D6-BDF2-9EEAABDE3A6E_sh72182.jpg
Had a decent windscreen, wide-set landing gear, actual rudder and elevator trim, and was said to fly beautifully. They needed to make a LOT more, but that's a "what if" I will not pursue.
#2: McDonnell XP-67 "Bat." It wasn't produced but it flew, and it looked quite good even if the performance numbers weren't quite up to the level of the specified-but-never-seen horsepower of the experimental engines.
http://www.lonesentry.com/images/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/xp-67-bat-experimental-plane.jpg
#1: To me, the best-looking fighter of the war was the Mitsubishi A6M5 Model 52 Zero.
https://www.flyingmag.com/resizer/M...aws.com/public/RDT3BWIZWWQIT57M4BGYR2DNEQ.jpg
Really looks like my idea of a WWII fighter. Yes, it had limited power, but the lines appeal to me. As an added bonus, I got to work on it a bit during the last overhaul.
https://www.artscale.eu/out/pictures/z1/48A21771-F3C2-46D6-BDF2-9EEAABDE3A6E_sh72182.jpg
Had a decent windscreen, wide-set landing gear, actual rudder and elevator trim, and was said to fly beautifully. They needed to make a LOT more, but that's a "what if" I will not pursue.
#2: McDonnell XP-67 "Bat." It wasn't produced but it flew, and it looked quite good even if the performance numbers weren't quite up to the level of the specified-but-never-seen horsepower of the experimental engines.
http://www.lonesentry.com/images/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/xp-67-bat-experimental-plane.jpg
#1: To me, the best-looking fighter of the war was the Mitsubishi A6M5 Model 52 Zero.
https://www.flyingmag.com/resizer/M...aws.com/public/RDT3BWIZWWQIT57M4BGYR2DNEQ.jpg
Really looks like my idea of a WWII fighter. Yes, it had limited power, but the lines appeal to me. As an added bonus, I got to work on it a bit during the last overhaul.
Last edited:
Actually two G.56 prototypes were built if I remember correctly. Splitting hairs though...
Uh oh, I watched that very aeroplane hit a crane on landing!
Although I agree, the Yak-3 is sweet from any angle (taken at the same airshow).
Elvis
Chief Master Sergeant
I know I already mentioned the P-40 and I really do think that's one of the most iconic looks in WWII aircraft, but nuuuumannnn's mention of the P-38 reminded me of one other aircraft that should not be denied, at least in the looks department....
...The F7F...
...By God, if one R-2800 is good, then two is just that much better!...and regardless of what you think of this aircraft, you gotta admit, THAT is the American way.....of thinking.
...The F7F...
...By God, if one R-2800 is good, then two is just that much better!...and regardless of what you think of this aircraft, you gotta admit, THAT is the American way.....of thinking.
TheMadPenguin
Senior Airman
F7F "twiggy" (my name for it) needs to put on a bit of weight in the fuselage for looks alone, if not for fuel storage, radar electronics, ordnance stores, and ammo for extended strafing runs.
vikingBerserker
Lieutenant General
michael rauls
Tech Sergeant
- 1,679
- Jul 15, 2016
Now that I think about it I think I should have included the A6m as tied fot 3rd in my pics. Not my very favorite, but close. Have always loved the simplicity and balanced proportion of its appearance.
Elvis
Chief Master Sergeant
I don't know man.
1200 miles range, without extra tanks. 1000 lbs. of bombs AND one of its hardpoints can carry a torpedo.
All that and its 80 mph faster than an F6F and 10 mph faster than an F8F.
I think it does just fine all on its own.
The F7F's sharp angles and slim profile reminds of the later Cobra helicopter.
Elvis
TheMadPenguin
Senior Airman
Shinden: Just because you can does not mean you should.
Do 335: Fastest plane to make no difference in the war.
These aren't SWEET lookers. Oddball standouts, but not sweet. Not "fighter aircraft at their best looks".
F7F is too skinny for "best looks" department. And not enough ammo. After Radar is added it has 4 20mm with 200 rpg. Germany is a BIG strafing target. Japan isn't much smaller.
Do 335: Fastest plane to make no difference in the war.
These aren't SWEET lookers. Oddball standouts, but not sweet. Not "fighter aircraft at their best looks".
F7F is too skinny for "best looks" department. And not enough ammo. After Radar is added it has 4 20mm with 200 rpg. Germany is a BIG strafing target. Japan isn't much smaller.
Last edited:
MIflyer
1st Lieutenant
At least one F7F was modified with a big built in tank for as role as a forest fire tanker. It was not pretty!
Elvis
Chief Master Sergeant
...and that is YOUR opinion.
I think its got some very sexy line and the dark blue paint scheme just adds a little badassery while implying a sense of "the little black dress".
It looks FAN-TASTIC. Don't you worry.
Elvis
Admiral Beez
Major
I agree, the F7F looks unbalanced. Best twin prop carrier fighter, Sea Hornet.
Even in the hangar it looks sharp.
Even in the hangar it looks sharp.
michael rauls
Tech Sergeant
- 1,679
- Jul 15, 2016
Thumbs up just for using the term badassery.
Yesss... The Hornet.
Elvis
Chief Master Sergeant
Seriously?
If anything is unbalanced, its that Hornet.
It's like a flat chested girl with a giant....derriere.
No front, all back.
Elvis
Really !
With those two big spinners up front, it's like a girl with no chest ???
They remind of what they used to call Dagmars on 50's car's.
Dagmar was the 50's actress with the tremendous Ta-Tas.
TheMadPenguin
Senior Airman
I'd have wished the engines back a bit on the Hornet & f7f, moving the pilot a bit forward for center of balance and a clearer field of view.
(and F7F pilot wouldn't have those 4 20mm's going off right behind his ears with muzzle flash past his face).
I've thought the same (engines back, pilot forward) with the Mosquito, one of my fav planes.
(and F7F pilot wouldn't have those 4 20mm's going off right behind his ears with muzzle flash past his face).
I've thought the same (engines back, pilot forward) with the Mosquito, one of my fav planes.
Heyyy! Like Tyrodtom says, no flat chest there, buddy, and what's wrong with a big rear end?
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
