@OrangeConnor2 thats not the point i made. It’s not a copy, and does not look entirely the same. The tu160 is larger, fatter, and uglier to say the least. Im not going to write the 3rd essay i have to this week on why i believe this. You can think differently and i wont give a shit. I respect your opinion and expect you to respect mine.
@GuardianAerospace Such as?
You say they look totally different, when they really don't. Being a copy does not make it objectively a bad aircraft. Same with being Soviet, and no, not everything the Soviets made was bad. In fact, a lot was quite decent.
@OrangeConnor2 the tu160 is fat and has a tiny nose whilst resembling a misshapen pancake. The b1 in my opinion looks slender, sexy, and has the right proportions and doesn’t look like it got sat on. Because the two have sweep wings and are purposed for supersonic flight, does not mean they are “virtually” the same. I dislike the tu160 because it is almost a copy of the b1, it looks ugly, and is Soviet. Nothing Soviet works unless it has gaijin Soviet bias. I am tired of having to try and express my opinion on this topic over and over. Please just respect my opinion and stop questioning it. You may think differently, but my outlook will not be changed.
@GuardianAerospace I know the Tu-160 has its ups and downs
but you are lying if you say the Tu-160 isnt Beautiful
I'm gonna challenge myself to make this ai capable
T for tag
As the phrase goes, Aight Dawg
@OrangeConnor2 thats not the point i made. It’s not a copy, and does not look entirely the same. The tu160 is larger, fatter, and uglier to say the least. Im not going to write the 3rd essay i have to this week on why i believe this. You can think differently and i wont give a shit. I respect your opinion and expect you to respect mine.
Bruh why this comment section turned into the Cold War
@GuardianAerospace Such as?
You say they look totally different, when they really don't. Being a copy does not make it objectively a bad aircraft. Same with being Soviet, and no, not everything the Soviets made was bad. In fact, a lot was quite decent.
@OrangeConnor2 on the contrary, the tu160 has a lot of rather stupid aspects.
@GuardianAerospace Your opinion, on a fairly objective subject, is based on largely stupid points.
@Eagleman101SP Lol fr
@GuardianAerospace valid glazing
@OrangeConnor2 the tu160 is fat and has a tiny nose whilst resembling a misshapen pancake. The b1 in my opinion looks slender, sexy, and has the right proportions and doesn’t look like it got sat on. Because the two have sweep wings and are purposed for supersonic flight, does not mean they are “virtually” the same. I dislike the tu160 because it is almost a copy of the b1, it looks ugly, and is Soviet. Nothing Soviet works unless it has gaijin Soviet bias. I am tired of having to try and express my opinion on this topic over and over. Please just respect my opinion and stop questioning it. You may think differently, but my outlook will not be changed.
@GuardianAerospace Says the person who dumps endlessly for a plane that looks virtually identical.
@Eagleman101SP T
@GuardianAerospace ❤️❤️❤️ thanks
@Eagleman101SP its not beautiful irl, but i mean this one is
T
t
@GuardianAerospace I know the Tu-160 has its ups and downs
but you are lying if you say the Tu-160 isnt Beautiful
I'm gonna challenge myself to make this ai capable
@Eagleman101SP so maybe this is competition
@Eagleman101SP the tu160 is not a good plane irl in my opinion, youll need to make it good in SP
@@GuardianAerospace AM I competition for your b1??