Abbey Road
And those reasons are ......?
The cargo-planes and most of the subsonic-bomber planes I listed had to do with the fact that they are aircraft that are designed to fly enormous distances while carrying substantial loads. To be able to do this depends at least partially on highly efficient wing designs which is helped along by the fact that none of these aircraft are designed for supersonic speed.
The B-36A Peacemaker: Was designed for antipodal range, though it didn't achieve it's goal, it still had truly enormous range and a massive payload, which of course was dependent on aerodynamics. This also allowed it to operate well at very high altitudes
The YB-49: It was a flying wing, which is naturally one of the most aerodynamically efficient designs. The fact that it was pretty cool looking is an added bonus.
I did not include the B-47 and B-52 because I already know what their L/D ratio's are.
The C-141A Starlifter: Was the USAF's first purpose-built jet-transport. Could fly large distances while carrying a heavy load
The C-5A Galaxy: Largest transport in US inventory, possesses global range, and the capacity to carry enormous loads owing to it's highly efficient aerodynamics and engines (which is kind of beyond the scope of this particular thread).
I already found out the projected L/D ratio for the B-57 Canberra online, so that isn't necessary now
The F-86E Sabre: It was one of the last fighter design that, while capable of breaking the sound-barrier in a dive, was essentially designed for high-speed subsonic-flight.
Most of the supersonic fighters I listed were based on the fact that they are aircraft that are designed predominantly for subsonic capability, but possess some supersonic capability as well to varying-degrees. My interest largely has to do with basically the effect of supersonic capability on supersonic flight, and the effect of L/D of aircraft when supersonic vs subsonic.
F-101C Voodoo: The aircraft was actually designed to be able to cruise substantial distances while subsonic in order to escort bombers requiring some decent subsonic aerodynamics, and yet be able to fly supersonic as well. On long-range flights, it would be carrying 2 x 450 gallon tanks, on shorter range flights, it wouldn't as I understand it; supersonic flight would probably be impossible with them attached, and the plane would fly clean.
F8U-2/F-8C Crusader: The aircraft had a pretty good range evidently when subsonic (apparently better than the F-100) which necessitates good aerodynamics. The aircraft was used partially as a point-defense interceptor and it could fly fairly far by the standards of fighters when supersonic which would probably partially depend on a good L/D ratio.
F-104C Starfighter: My fascination with this design is that it has thin, razor sharp wings wings that have almost an inverse camber like characteristic about them making them exceptionally efficient when supersonic, while I am pretty sure it would be inevitable that it's L/D ratio would be higher when subsonic, the difference between supersonic and subsonic L/D ratio looks like it could be lower than most aircraft designs. My curiosity regarding wing tanks pertains to the fact that I've been told that the L/D ratio was actually higher when the tip-tanks were attached due to it acting like an end-plate for the wing.
The supersonic bomber designs I listed simply due to the fact that in order to fly for protracted periods while supersonic, one needs even greater aerodynamic efficiency than a plane designed to quickly dash at that speed as there is only so much fuel you can stuff into an aircraft.
The B-58A Hustler: It was the first bomber that was actually designed for protracted supersonic flight. It had very thin, conically cambered delta wings (which improved performance both supersonic and subsonic), large elevons, and the means to shift fuel around as ballast to compensate for the shifting center of pressure allowing the elevon deflections to be minimized. It was a very fascinating design as it was quite small for a contemporary medium-bomber, and seemed more like a large fighter. It had an unconventional weapons configuration, whereas most bombers carry their weapons inside the aircraft; the B-58 carried it's bombs inside a streamlined pod carried outside the aircraft. The aircraft was highly streamlined, and a little bit over area-ruled to compensate for the drag of the pod, though regardless pilots who flew it said that once the pod was off the plane performed better.
The XB-70A Valkyrie: The Valkyrie was the biggest and heaviest aircraft both to fly supersonic, and to be able to fly for protracted periods of time while supersonic. It had an intercontinental range (though less than desired), a large payload, and actually held a record for the highest supersonic L/D ratio for a manned aircraft. I'm simply curious what it is.
Sounds like someone wanting to fiddle with MS Flight Sim aircraft config editor/designer software.
I actually do own FSX, but that's not why I'm doing this: If it was, I would have just asked. I'm pretty blunt and I generally say what's on my mind.