I don’t understand these videos because are y’all saying that they look modern like modern fighter jets or are y’all saying the look new like well maintained and shiy
@TheCertifiedDummy6 күн бұрын
HO229 :
@nNDOPACbl6 күн бұрын
F14 Tomcat:🤫🧏
@jejoautomotive8 күн бұрын
I saw th B52 at sanicole this weekend
@gazy-gi7pb8 күн бұрын
💀stratofortress is still in service
@Safteyisoveratted9 күн бұрын
Who says that
@TheRDUspotter9 күн бұрын
lol those vids on the way to post your short
@TheRDUspotter9 күн бұрын
can you come today around 6? I might go
@BlueDudeAviation9 күн бұрын
There is like no good planes that land after 5
@TheRDUspotter9 күн бұрын
@@BlueDudeAviation Alaska and icelandair, but also Air France and American 777 takeoff at around 6
@BlueDudeAviation9 күн бұрын
@@TheRDUspotter ok. I’ll see
@BlueDudeAviation9 күн бұрын
I can’t. My dad doesn’t want to take me, and my mom will be working
@TheRDUspotter9 күн бұрын
@@BlueDudeAviation ok :{
@Simply_the_top_G10 күн бұрын
I noticed the pinned comment and I myself have made this mistake before. The bomber you may be thinking of is the Horten H.XVIII, also known as the Horten “Amerika Bomber” it was engineered for ultra wide ranges, the intended targets would obviously be major American cities such as New York, Washington DC, and more. It would have been designed to go up to 560 miles per hour, which at the time would have been impossible for a bomber. It would have had many mg turrets and several front facing armaments as well as being able to carry surprisingly only 8,000 pounds, which in theory is not that much compared to the much shorter ranged B-17 Super-fortresses which could carry about that. It was also armed with 6 junkets turbojet engines. Turbo jet engines are compact jet engines, for example the wing mounted ones on the Me262. Turbo jet engines being so compact of course didn’t leave much room for power, giving it a thrust to weight ratio of only 0.17. Too bad this beast would only have been brought to the very basic design stages. There were too many errors and not enough time, people, resources, and money left for the Germans to have developed this. Also, it was simply too hard to create.
@jejelaso610 күн бұрын
Comanche 😎
@FighterJetOfDoom10 күн бұрын
Then there’s my favorite bomber: The B-1 Lamer. It’s close to 40-45 years old and looks pretty new. Also it can go supersonic unlike the BUFF and the dorito
@SketchyProductions-m7c10 күн бұрын
even though the ho229 isn’t a bomber it’s crazy to think that the B-52 and the ho229 are 13 years apart
@HoustonAviation10 күн бұрын
Is crazy how fast these countries got to work after ww2 seeing the germans fighter jets
@BraydenTaylor-w1b10 күн бұрын
Grandpa buff mentioned
@PeterWurster10 күн бұрын
That's not rare
@TCC-RMG10 күн бұрын
ho229 is my favorite ww2 jet
@sarbanisantra254110 күн бұрын
HO 229 looks like b2 sprit those who think they are brother comment thick emoji 🎉🎉🎉
@Nico1983510 күн бұрын
Horten?
@Thewhyhowwhen10 күн бұрын
Cuz they are modern.
@kyryloslav10 күн бұрын
Brother, f-15 is 52 years old HALF A CENTURY And yet it still kicks ass
@danstrous11079 күн бұрын
After 48 years from its introduction, the F-15 still owns the record of 104-0 in air combat with only 2 units shot down by SAMs
@Gustavo_YT36811 күн бұрын
F111, F14, what we’re y’all talking about, we got swept wings
@Buttermybumandcallmebiscuit11 күн бұрын
The HO229 never saw combat and both models crashed
@MKYpro0911 күн бұрын
1930 to 1990s was the peak of technology
@ecofriendly_woodveneers11 күн бұрын
humans can rlly make a BIG difference between 11 years
@TreyTurner-bj6ln11 күн бұрын
The ho228 is not a bomber but I can see why you would think it was it looks like the b2 and b21
@FandyOliver11 күн бұрын
Aircraft name
@denisearmstrong860011 күн бұрын
The b52 is still in service i think, that probably makes it the longest lasting nuclear bomber we have.
@Warfire0010 күн бұрын
And it will be for decades to come simply because it can be adapted. Better engines are getting developed? Just put them on it. It’s a massive and almost perfect airframe so it’s still got a long life ahead of it
@Alastor-.11 күн бұрын
B52 was made in 52, hence the name.
@players_aviation10 күн бұрын
It wasn't made on 1952, it was genuinely in 1955
@Alastor-.10 күн бұрын
@@players_aviation really? Huh
@players_aviation10 күн бұрын
@@Alastor-. Search it up
@kemureki11 күн бұрын
Ho 229 was a fighter, not a bomber.
@Communist_Villager11 күн бұрын
The Horten HO-229 was from 1944 not 1942
@pantj_yt11 күн бұрын
HOB225 WAS 1945 💀💀💀💀💀
@DarkSailor511 күн бұрын
It wasn prototype finished in 1944 and wasent ever used, also it isnt a bomber its an jet fighter.
@Murder_drones_at_your_door12 күн бұрын
HO-229 never was used in combat do it doesn't counts as anything but a prototype.
@Hobbylobby123412 күн бұрын
Not bomber
@AndreiTrajano-d8l12 күн бұрын
B-52 stands for not bomber 52 big ugly fellow or the f word
@harleyis_gaming12 күн бұрын
People meat ride the Ho so much
@Soda_boys12 күн бұрын
The HO 229 was originally meant to be a bomber i mean look at its size how would that thing be a bomber I think the germans changed it for cost reasons
@owendodge844412 күн бұрын
The HO 229 is not a bomber
@Soda_boys12 күн бұрын
It was meant to be a bomber but wasn't built in time and documents were probably destroyed due to them not wanting the allies to know how to make it its war thunder that makes it a fighter
@maxmaxwell582212 күн бұрын
Forgot one x15
@Legy-lol12 күн бұрын
Erm what the sigma the HO229 ain't no bomber T-T
@Кипитез12 күн бұрын
The ho229 was actually made in 1944🤓☝️
@lordfosill435212 күн бұрын
229 a bomber ????
@U-N-I-T-E-D_N-A-T-I-O-N-S12 күн бұрын
yeah, designed as a fighter-bomber
@TheRDUspotter12 күн бұрын
F-117: Hold my beer
@manateegames306712 күн бұрын
The HO-229 was actually intended as a Bomber-Interceptor.
@thunderbruh2112 күн бұрын
B-52 don’t look modern, Ho-229 not a bomber.
@U-N-I-T-E-D_N-A-T-I-O-N-S12 күн бұрын
The Horten H.IX, RLM designation Ho 229 is a German prototype fighter/bomber (literally copy & pasted)
@erikvymetal45512 күн бұрын
Ho 229 was made in 1944
@PanzerFaust64YT13 күн бұрын
Knowing the planes makes them feel old
@ReloR613 күн бұрын
1944-1955 tech is actually stunning how fast 11 years of time can change stuff
@AJ1Aerospace11 күн бұрын
Yea in 1955 there was the B-52 and we hadnt gone to space yet and then in 1962 there was orbital rockets thats a timespan of 7 years
@Warfire0010 күн бұрын
This is why I believe WW2 was one of the most positive events in human history. The technological advancement it brought on would have likely taken decades, possibly centuries to achieve what was done in 6 years, let alone what was developed in the resulting Cold War. It also sparked an era of global peace never before seen in human history.
@AJ1Aerospace10 күн бұрын
@@Warfire00 Althought i know what you mean, I do not believe "positive events" is the correct wording for a war that had millions of people killed.