Page 9 of 19
RE: Australian Beauties II
Posted: Wed Jan 19, 2022 2:41 pm
by Orm
ORIGINAL: warspite1
Sticking with things Italian, there is the Piaggio bomber. No full of character, just ugly thanks to the nose.
Hear, hear.
RE: Australian Beauties II
Posted: Wed Jan 19, 2022 2:51 pm
by Aurelian
B-17

RE: Australian Beauties II
Posted: Wed Jan 19, 2022 3:04 pm
by warspite1
ORIGINAL: Aurelian
B-17
warspite1
Personally I'm not a fan of this particular colour scheme, but I love the aircraft. Rugged, purposeful, yet really quite pretty.
RE: Australian Beauties II
Posted: Wed Jan 19, 2022 3:36 pm
by Orm
Here is a plane full of character.

RE: Australian Beauties II
Posted: Wed Jan 19, 2022 4:11 pm
by Aurelian
Lancaster

RE: Australian Beauties II
Posted: Wed Jan 19, 2022 4:21 pm
by Orm
ORIGINAL: Aurelian
Lancaster
That is beauty, and character, combined into one mean, big, machine. [&o] [:)]
Edit: And the colour scheme is stunningly beautiful.
RE: Australian Beauties II
Posted: Wed Jan 19, 2022 4:36 pm
by Aurelian
Mossie aka Wooden Wonder

RE: Australian Beauties II
Posted: Thu Jan 20, 2022 6:05 am
by warspite1
ORIGINAL: Orm
Here is a plane full of character.
warspite1
True dat [:)] We all love Tante Ju [&o]
RE: Australian Beauties II
Posted: Thu Jan 20, 2022 6:13 am
by warspite1
ORIGINAL: Aurelian
Lancaster
warspite1
Oh yeah baby [:)] The tail design probably means the B-17 is higher in the beauty ranking, but a mother of all aircraft all the same.
RE: Australian Beauties II
Posted: Thu Jan 20, 2022 6:14 am
by warspite1
ORIGINAL: Aurelian
Mossie aka Wooden Wonder
warspite1
Not what I call beautiful, but rather impossibly pretty
RE: Australian Beauties II
Posted: Thu Jan 20, 2022 7:18 am
by Orm
ORIGINAL: warspite1
ORIGINAL: Aurelian
Lancaster
warspite1
Oh yeah baby [:)] The tail design probably means the B-17 is higher in the beauty ranking, but a mother of all aircraft all the same.
Funny. The tail design is the clincher for me. The Lancaster is the standard for a good looking heavy WWII bomber that I compare the others against. And, so far, no one (that I recall) has been close.
RE: Australian Beauties II
Posted: Thu Jan 20, 2022 7:23 am
by Orm
And when we speak of full of character...

RE: Australian Beauties II
Posted: Thu Jan 20, 2022 7:28 am
by warspite1
ORIGINAL: Orm
And when we speak of full of character...
warspite1
Mmmmm The flying porcupine or the Catalina? Which has more character? [:)]

RE: Australian Beauties II
Posted: Thu Jan 20, 2022 7:36 am
by warspite1
ORIGINAL: warspite1
ORIGINAL: Orm
And when we speak of full of character...
warspite1
Mmmmm The flying porcupine or the Catalina? Which has more character? [:)]
warspite1
Or maybe an He-115 is where u at?

RE: Australian Beauties II
Posted: Thu Jan 20, 2022 10:48 am
by Aurelian
Speaking of floatplanes..... The A6M2N

RE: Australian Beauties II
Posted: Thu Jan 20, 2022 2:53 pm
by Aurelian
U-505 a Type IXC.
Only one of four U-Boats in existence as museum ships.
The most heavily damaged U-Boat to make it to port.
Became the butt of jokes thanks to her four in a row botched patrols.
Her captain shot himself in the control room while under depth charge attack on her 10th patrol.
Captured on her 12th patrol.
RE: Australian Beauties II
Posted: Thu Jan 20, 2022 8:23 pm
by Toby42
One of my favorite planes!

RE: Australian Beauties II
Posted: Thu Jan 20, 2022 9:23 pm
by Lobster
Delivering P-40s to land bases by carrier. If a B-25 can do it why not P-40s? [;)]
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=p- ... &FORM=VIRE
RE: Australian Beauties II
Posted: Thu Jan 20, 2022 9:33 pm
by ernieschwitz
Speaking of Ugly, I present to you the ersatz tank destroyer 7,5 cm Pak 40/4 auf RSO (Sf).

RE: Australian Beauties II
Posted: Thu Jan 20, 2022 9:51 pm
by RangerJoe
That was also done with escort carriers for Operation Torch.