T

@Saturn0 oh

The third option

@KPLBall alternative-alternative

@KPLBall don't look like either tho :(

@Saturn0 so like the Boeing 2707?

@KPLBall its not supposed to look much like the Concorde, more so like the alternative choice of supersonic airliners

T
Is it Boeing 2707 or that Lockheed one?
It don't look like a Concord with that nose

Le T

@LoganAviation any time

@Saturn0 thank you

@LoganAviation yes

Concordoeing 739-700

Can you tag me when you post it

@TheACcompany good

@Saturn0 I forgor about my plane, I’m hopping back on simpleplanes

@TheACcompany salutations

你好

I got it now
Its an B-1A(irliner).

@SPsidearm Lol, I kind of am a NATO fanboy. I literally just finished a trifold exhibit project for civics on the 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia/Serbia

@Saturn0
ok

@Saturn0
"NATO Fanbo-"

@SPsidearm I just realized that sounded hostile sorry about that it wasn’t supposed to be, just standing my ground for my beloved lancer.

@SPsidearm the tu160 isn’t a really great example to consider as a marvel of engineering, because the lancer is better at virtually everything that the tu160 does. Furthermore the tu160 and B1 lancer were designed for primarily different tasks. The Tu160 was designed to be a versatile fast supersonic bomber, and the B1 lancer was designed as a low altitude, supersonic bomber with lower radar cross sections. Can we please not fight over something like this? Russia is already losing in Ukraine to a relatively small amount of 30-40 year old American equipment. Imagine what Russia would perform like against that 40 year old plane with revamped technology, modern American equipment and weapons, and operated by the actual US Air Force with extremely efficient logistical support.

@Saturn0
You don't understand. The Tu-160 is a marvel of engineering that deserves to be recognized instead of the lancer.