It’s Japan that’s the problem. No one wants to speak it out loud, but the unspoken says it all. What do they consider the F-35? They let how many nations contribute to its’ design and construction? And those nations are in on the purchase. I’m surprised Japan wasn’t in on that action. Then again, maybe not. Now the F-22 on the other hand is completely in country. Granted, different aircraft philosophies and different times. But even the Raptor has now swallowed up every contractor in country and even the losers (so to speak) are helping to build it.

Well, you’re right MiG-23. That’s why i just posted what i thought were beautiful aircraft. And if you noticed the trend, i like the tailless delta design over all others. It just leaves a lot less clutter (and by ‘clutter’ i mean less surfaces, namely the horizontal tailplane). ANY delta usually wins out over other more common shapes to me. It leaves lines a lot more cleaner, which is what i find more attractive. These new generations of canrded deltas don’t cut it for me either. Typhoon is rather ungainly, having an ugly box for an intake slung underneath a deeeeeep forward fuselage and these teeny tiny canards that almost look as if they would serve no purpose. Rafale looks nice, but i liked the prototype better. Gripen is fairly attractive, until it is seen from the front (it’s not the dihedraled canards, it’s again the boxy looking intakes that lose it for me – they should’ve been softer).

And it’s not like i don’t like a bunch of others listed here. Just that i don’t like them as much as the ones i mentioned for the reasons i stated above. I mean, i find the Tu-160 and B-1B attractive – but they’re of a blended body design which i find appealing. A few of the rest you listed (the BUFF, the B-47, the Tu-16) are like taking two sticks and putting them together. That’s not what i find attractive.

Well, the two Hawkers – Hart & Fury – are probably the most beautiful of the pre-WWII era. Quite possibly the most beautiful biplanes ever in my opinion.

Of WWII, i’d say the most beautiful light/small planes were the Italian Re2001, the Russian Il2, the American P-39 and the German Fw190. The mediums were the American P-61 and the British Mosquito. The heavies (although it can be argued how heavy these two are) would be the American As 20 and 26.

Of the 50s, 60s and 70s i’d say the French Mirage III & IV and Mystere IV, the American B-58 and F-106, the British Vulcan and Victor and Buccaneer, the Russian MiG-19 and the Swiss Fouga Magister (dunno why i like that thing, i just do).

Of the 80s, 90s and today i’d say the French Mirage 2000 is probably the most beautiful aircraft ever. Oh, sorry. I mean for France. For fighters. Whatever. The Russian MiG-29 and American B-2 also.

Ugliest is definitely the F-117. Hands down.

[SIZE=2]The Thud is probably my fave – i got a thing for those big uglies. But then there’s also something glamourous about the 104. Deltas have that appeal, like a go fast look and a simplified design (reminds one of paper airplanes you can build), but the Mirages have always had a slight edge over the American deltas i thought. Wasn’t there even a model Convair was working on called the Delta Demon? I thought i remembered reading about that one in a Colby book back in grade school.[/SIZE]

Any aircraft that gets redos in different air forces (the F-86/FJ-1, F-84/Mystere) is kinda boring to me.

The Kawasaki T-1 probably takes the taco for me, though. Seems like it tried to be a Jaguar or a thin F-4 and failed on both counts.

The music should definitely be instrumental. Words in the background of documentaries are bad. Words are bad, mmmkay? Not really that great in movies either. Though Iron Eagle did a pretty good job. Music from Hans Zimmer would fit right in. Basil Poledouris, Randy Edelmann or Micheal Kamen could also probably add some good stuff. And throw in that killer two piece from Eddie & Alex Van Halen Respect the Wind (from Twister).

Personally, i think the A-7 was a great workhorse for the USN. Not as much so for the USAF, but still pretty good. It had the great warload capability and the great loiter time that set the standard for the planes to follow (ok, the F/A-18). That’s why it was such a harsh play out of how the F-18 got selected. The AF probably just couldn’t figure out what to do with it after Vietnam, so it just did its’ reserve time and left. Too bad it was such a killer on carriers. Not that we the public are privy to the lives it ‘Hoovered’, but ask any old USN sailor, i’m sure he’ll tell you some horror stories about it.

Regardless, i still think the F-23 is too good to let go. And it hasn’t been. There have been numerous articles in the past (before the days of us typing on this message board and internet) from various sources (N-G’s newletter included) that let slip they brought the YF-23 about by tweaking a design they were already flying and testing. Seriously, look at it. Does it really seem like a great air superiority/counter air fighter to you? No. But it sure seems like a great striker/interdictor, don’t it?

MODERATED for color. I couldn’t read this without selecting it – i thought i’d do other people who might be interested in what is typed here a favour.