@OpenHere Lmao yea ur right but the B1B Lancer program wasn’t introduced in 1985. The Tu95 Bear was introduced in 1956. Almost 30 years apart, so I am comparing it today with modern standards. But you are right in the way that you are describing it.
@WisconsinStatePolice you’re right but the B1 can be refueled in the air. The b52 is also one of my favs but to me the b1b just stands out. The tu95 really doesn’t stand any kind of chance. It would be detected and neutralized before it would get within firing range. And yes i do think the b1b lancer is a very pretty plane. The 1011 doesn't really seem too astounding though but still looks nice.
@Graingy but heres the thing, yes the B52 is good but doesn’t have the speed or survivability in heavier circumstances. I almost started laughing when I heard the term, “Tu-95”. The thing looks like it is stuck in 1947. It still has turboprops for some weird reason, the engineers must’ve thought, “hmm, I am definitely 100% positive a turboprop bomber that wont stand a real chance against modern fighters within 20-30 years of the first deployment will be a great idea compared to a jet bomber with engines to be refined further in the years to come!” The Tu-95 literally needs to have tires strapped to its wings and fuselage to stop any missiles from causing any damage over Ukraine. The tires don't even help they just contribute to drag, limit maneuverability and evasive maneuvers, make it heavier, pose a hazard to pretty much everything because if it is hit by a missile or whatever the flammable rubber and structural integrity side effects the tires bring just make it an easier target. Can’t believe they actually think tires are effective defensive measures lmao. (Btw I don’t want to cause a debate, I am just talking about my opinion backed up with factual evidence and stuff, dont take it too seriously :D)
@TalonTheCRTguy does the T-38C Talon have variable sweep wings, internal weapons bays, heavy bombing capability, low radar visibility, and nuclear capability?
@Christiant2 8/10, great speed, armament, maneuverability, but straighten out the nose gear because it yaws on takeoff and landing. Just change the Y rotation to 0
@Speedhunter the center of a black hole is hypothetically infinitely dense. Same thing here with this build. Infinity is not a defined number or amount hence it is a term instead. So therefore they are both the same density somehow lmao
@TheNewSPplayer like lag and processing power im pretty sure.
Right now it’s at 425 which isn’t bad. My BS61-100 however… well I think we can tell how many people on a phone can’t play with it right here. Just look at the very last “parts” detail in the specifications
@TheNewSPplayer so far it’s 172. Not including cockpit, windows, framing, parts of the wings, engines, landing gear, funky trees parts, tail, stabilizers, details, and just smaller parts.
@OpenHere Lmao yea ur right but the B1B Lancer program wasn’t introduced in 1985. The Tu95 Bear was introduced in 1956. Almost 30 years apart, so I am comparing it today with modern standards. But you are right in the way that you are describing it.
@Graingy a bit less is an understatement
@WisconsinStatePolice you’re right but the B1 can be refueled in the air. The b52 is also one of my favs but to me the b1b just stands out. The tu95 really doesn’t stand any kind of chance. It would be detected and neutralized before it would get within firing range. And yes i do think the b1b lancer is a very pretty plane. The 1011 doesn't really seem too astounding though but still looks nice.
+1@FOXHOUND26 … (I mean I don't want to fight against that it’s good enough, Ill take it)
@Graingy but heres the thing, yes the B52 is good but doesn’t have the speed or survivability in heavier circumstances. I almost started laughing when I heard the term, “Tu-95”. The thing looks like it is stuck in 1947. It still has turboprops for some weird reason, the engineers must’ve thought, “hmm, I am definitely 100% positive a turboprop bomber that wont stand a real chance against modern fighters within 20-30 years of the first deployment will be a great idea compared to a jet bomber with engines to be refined further in the years to come!” The Tu-95 literally needs to have tires strapped to its wings and fuselage to stop any missiles from causing any damage over Ukraine. The tires don't even help they just contribute to drag, limit maneuverability and evasive maneuvers, make it heavier, pose a hazard to pretty much everything because if it is hit by a missile or whatever the flammable rubber and structural integrity side effects the tires bring just make it an easier target. Can’t believe they actually think tires are effective defensive measures lmao. (Btw I don’t want to cause a debate, I am just talking about my opinion backed up with factual evidence and stuff, dont take it too seriously :D)
@TalonTheCRTguy does the T-38C Talon have variable sweep wings, internal weapons bays, heavy bombing capability, low radar visibility, and nuclear capability?
@HanakoSan AAHH—
+1just my opinion, ;) don’t take it too seriously if you simp for the Tu160
@TheUltimatePlaneLover np!
+1Congrats on platinum! 🥳 Remember me as the one who lifted you up!
+1@Apollo018362 W helicopter
@Christiant2 8/10, great speed, armament, maneuverability, but straighten out the nose gear because it yaws on takeoff and landing. Just change the Y rotation to 0
+2@Christiant2 i have no idea how to build anything of the such. Unfortunately i cannot help with this one
+1temu version of @TheMouse (please pin)
+1@Speedhunter the center of a black hole is hypothetically infinitely dense. Same thing here with this build. Infinity is not a defined number or amount hence it is a term instead. So therefore they are both the same density somehow lmao
+1@Christiant2 no cockpit on the CT-4? :(
@Christiant2 nope
@SuperSuperTheSylph oops i didnt update my spreadsheet
+1@SuperSuperTheSylph click the (here) in the pinned comment
+1@Solent19 roger that
+1@TheMouse yes
if you want to be tagged on any future builds, comment T on the teasers or ask to be put on my tagging list located (here)
@DatFiat126Guy19
+1@EasternAviation2015
@BYardley
@TheUltimatePlaneLover
+1@MAPA
@BadahhMuscleCar001
@Delta243
+1@Christiant2
@SLSD11ph
@GeneralCorpInc
+1@Emma159
@DogedogebreadWithAnAK47
@TheMouse
@Mav3r1ck
@IzzyTheCat
skibidi dop dop dop yes yes
+1Tf is this new brainrot trend
+2Lmao, I made this but in a glass
MiG-29 lookin’ ahh
I dont need no tail
+1@AeroCheese 18 downloads*
@TheNewSPplayer like lag and processing power im pretty sure.
Right now it’s at 425 which isn’t bad. My BS61-100 however… well I think we can tell how many people on a phone can’t play with it right here. Just look at the very last “parts” detail in the specifications
@Christiant2 chonker
@Christiant2 big chungus
Le chonk
@TheNewSPplayer Lol, thats my estimate on the part count. I reckon the performance cost will be quite high
@Rjenteissussy agreeable
+1@TheNewSPplayer 300+
@Christiant2 fieter chet
@TheNewSPplayer so far it’s 172. Not including cockpit, windows, framing, parts of the wings, engines, landing gear, funky trees parts, tail, stabilizers, details, and just smaller parts.
@Christiant2 moultie roel
+1@MAPA he is all knowing, all seeing, and all controlling
+2@L1nus Agreed
@L1nus Lol
+1@Graingy It is this one
@Rjenteissussy @DatFiat126Fan19 42 minutes ago…
+1@Rjenteissussy @DatFiat126Guy19 14 minutes ago…
+1seconds ago…
+2