f-18 is very ugly

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

9 hours ago, G.J.S said:

It’s his “improvement” of the -18, says “it looks better” !?!!?.

I just can’t . . . .

 

Like I said, everybody gangsta until the Hornet with goiters rolls up.

[Top Jockey]

On 10/17/2021 at 2:48 AM, odrin said:

it looks uglier than the a-10. why is it do you think? imo it's because of the slanted vertical stabilizers,the skinniness of the fuselage, it looks like an f-16 with the tail split into two. here's my edit that improved the f-18's looks:

 

 

 

Yeah sure, it looks good.

... the damn thing looks like it was improved with a ball hammer, by Leepu Awlia from Chop Shop London Garage.

[bies]

Hornet has complicated aerodynamics with many blended elements and curvatures so it looks great at some angles and only so so at some others. The same is true for the most 4th gen fighters.

BTW legacy Hornet looks way better and way more proportional than Superbug which is disproportional with some elements enlarged greatly and other remained unchanged, with tiny engine section and huge intakes etc.

[Top Jockey]

24 minutes ago, bies said:

Hornet has complicated aerodynamics with many blended elements and curvatures so it looks great at some angles and only so so at some others. The same is true for the most 4th gen fighters.

BTW legacy Hornet looks way better and way more proportional than Superbug which is disproportional with some elements enlarged greatly and other remained unchanged, with tiny engine section and huge intakes etc.

...

 

Very good, I wouldn't find a better description of the Hornet's looks.

Although I find it reasonably 'balanced' aesthetics wise, the F-16C airframe is more sleek to me.

 

Regardiong the Super Hornet... yes, preciselly the details you mention, do make it look somewhat disproportional.

However the only "con" I have to point to it every time I look at it, is I can't stop remembering: those "straight wings" (not swept like in the F-16) do hinder its top speed...