Anonymous commented at 2011-04-25 23:11:29 » #708906

That's one of the British V-Bombers... a Handley Page Victor if I remember correctly.

0 Points Flag

Anonymous commented at 2011-07-01 22:12:36 » #793758

Vickers Valiant to be correct.

4 Points Flag

Anonymous commented at 2011-09-26 19:36:07 » #887040

I thought the artist for this series only does old Russian aircraft.

I've been wrong before.

1 Points Flag

Anonymous commented at 2011-10-19 19:57:45 » #904779

The dead giveaway for the V-bombers--the Victor, Valiant and Vulcan among them--is that they all have extremely thick wings with the engines buried inside them. The Russians subscribe more to the same school of design as the U.S., which is to keep the wings slim and put the engines in the body or nacelles and not try to bury them inside the wings.

1 Points Flag

Anonymous commented at 2011-12-11 17:33:19 » #948779

@904779 - What Russian aircraft are YOU looking at? Tu-16, Myasishchev M-4/3M, Tu-104/-110/-124 all had wing root engine setups like the V-Bombers, and the DH Comet. The only difference was the Russians used two engines on the Tu-16 medium bomber as opposed to four for the same class for the British (and as a side bar, the lone Valiant B.2 used the podded gear setup before Tupolev made it a trademark). The only Russian bomber to use pylon mounted podded engines like the US was the M-50.

4 Points Flag

Anonymous commented at 2012-01-29 21:22:42 » #989973

Uh, Tu-95 ring any bells? It's only the most famous Russian bomber of all time.

0 Points Flag

Anonymous commented at 2012-03-04 21:08:48 » #1016007

Anon989973 - It's also a TURBOPROP. You find me a PRODUCTION multiengined turboprop bomber from Russia, the US, or the UK, with internal engines and the 'Bear' can included in this little chat.
The key fact with the 'buried vs. pylon' engine discussion is that it relates to JETS.

3 Points Flag