> 1 <
| Author | Message | |||
admin
See my 107 Photos  
|
2007-08-07 GMT-5 hours 
|
|||
|
I think it's a disgrace to the F-16 to do this to it:
The F-16 was designed as a low-cost, high-speed, single-seat interceptor with only one missile on each wing tip and a gun. I think the true beauty of the F-16 is lost with these kind of warts and tumors all over the place. I think it's the ugliest thing ever and I hate to see one of my favorite aircraft look like this. This is the way the plane was meant to fly.
-Ray |
| Author | Message |
rjpowney
See my 301 Photos 
|
2007-08-07 GMT-5 hours 
|
|
Pah!
  The F-16E, F-16F and F-16I (which I guess also therefore drags the Big Spine Block 50 Ds into the equation) are the finest looking Vipers ever built!
Regards, |
| Author | Message |
Higgsr71
See my 863 Photos
|
2007-08-07 GMT-5 hours 
|
|
Sorry Raymondo but I agree with Rob on this, the additional spine and CFT's make the Viper look much better in my opinion, although I am not a lover of the F-16 as it seems everybody operates them and they all (for the most part) look the same. (Hmmm why do I think I may have a simular opinion of the JSF in a few years time)
The two pictured above are however much better looking not only because of the spine and CFT additon, but the fact that the colour schemes are different to the standard Viper scheme as is the case with the USAF/USN Aggressor/Adversary Vipers along with the Polish AF version, their Viper scheme looks great. I wouldn't mind using a few megapixels on the above top two pictured Vipers  Cheers John Regards |
| Author | Message |
admin
See my 107 Photos
|
2007-08-07 GMT-5 hours
|
|
Oh man, I guess beauty really is in the eye of the beholder. I think my Megapixels would be much better spent on the bottom left one than anything on the top. It doesn't even look right. Looks like someone made a mistake and screwed on the part of another airplane to it. They've taken a beautiful flying machine and tried to turn it into a tank.
-Ray |
| Author | Message |
rjpowney
See my 301 Photos
|
2007-08-07 GMT-5 hours
|
|
That Viper in the bottom left isn't a proper Viper... where's the LANTIRN pod(s) or the HTS pod? :wink
Regards, |
| Author | Message |
Check6
|
2007-08-07 GMT-5 hours 
|
|
I agree with you Ray.....the top two pictures and the bottom left are hideous. The F-16 looks much better clean as in your bottom right photo.
|
| Author | Message |
painter
|
2007-08-07 GMT-5 hours
|
|
I must day that I've always been a sucker for the clean wing-body blending of the F-16. Although I know their much more capaple than the first F-16, the spine/CFT twoholers are not getting any prettier...
Smoke on...Go! |
| Author | Message |
Check6
|
2007-08-07 GMT-5 hours
|
 Great photo of a clean USAF Falcon loaded for bear..... |
| Author | Message |
admin
See my 107 Photos
|
2007-08-07 GMT-5 hours
|
Quote After-thoughts, after-thoughts...Now why would you need that in an air-to-air dog fight?
-Ray |
| Author | Message |
Captain Jack Sparrow
|
2007-10-29 GMT-5 hours
|
|
I love the Block 52+ Vipers with the Dorsal fin and CFT.
Check out these Polish one's below, very crisp paint scheme as well: 
|
| Author | Message |
N74JW
|
2007-10-29 GMT-5 hours
|
|
I like the traditional 'slick' F-16 looks. The CFT's and thick-spine are just bloat, from an appearance point of view.
The F-16 is one of the slickest fighters ever produced... |
| Author | Message |
Ghostbase
See my 2,749 Photos 
|
2007-10-29 GMT-5 hours 
|
|
Well, I was an aircraft-mad teenager when the original YF-16 won the fly-off against the Northrop YF-17 and the aircraft looked so cool and futuristic in that original red, white and blue colour scheme. The right plane won!
Personally I don't mind the conformal fuel tanks and the spine, it is good to see the design still evolving 30 years later. And, those with long memories will remember the 'cranked arrow' winged F-16XL which looked odd but could definitely have been a classic had it been developed further. There was also the F-16 AFTI which had a spine added as well as some canards, I was lucky enough to see it at Edwards AFB quite a few years ago Regards not liking the F-16 because it is so numerous, well that is what people were saying about the Starfighter in Europe in the 70's and now we would give our right arms to see one flying! Michael Appears to be thinking... |
| Author | Message |
Sneeker
|
2007-11-01 GMT-5 hours
|
|
Im kind of a sucker for functionality... If thats even a word. But if it has a tool and it works I like it. I love the look of the A-10 for that very reason, some people think its ugly. But it can sure kick the crap out of a dude on the ground. Thats the very reason I like the F-16 clean or dirty, If its clean and only has 2 Aim-9 hanging off its tips or 2 Aim-120's and 2- Aim-9's it can sure kick the crap out of alot flying around the unfriendly sky's old and new. There for I like it.
For Fighter and attack aircraft, also aircraft in general and any machine in cheneral like car's and ships. If its the best at doing its job im all for it, and its Beautiful to me. Still waiting on Snort to take me for a spin in anything! |
| Author | Message |
Redskin301
See my 1,840 Photos
|
2007-11-27 GMT-5 hours
|
| Author | Message |
eagle15
|
2008-05-31 GMT-5 hours
|
|
well the f-16 is beautiful in any way you see it.i love it with or without the CFT
|
> 1 <