With the advent of fly by wire, the laws of physics don't appear to be much of a limiting factor do they? With computers flying, could they get just about anything to fly?  Even before f.b.w., the US military had some pretty unusual and ungainly looking aircraft flying(?), or at least being controllable while in the air.

Do airplane designers now, or ever, consider the look of the aircraft in any way?

I would think that with military aircraft, form would follow function always, but in the competitive world of commercial & private aircraft, would one maker have an edge with a 'prettier' plane?

Humans by nature prefer things that are not ugly, so much like an exotic car maker takes into account aesthetics with aerodynamics, would/do airplane manufactures do this?

The old saying goes; "If it looks right, it'll fly right." There's a certain amount of truth in that.

Quote:

Not sure about #2. The MiG 15 also has swept wings & looks very aggressive. IMHO

Layne. wrote on Aug 6^th, 2009 at 3:07am:

Have a look at this photo & tell me which one looks the more aggressive. http://www.richard-seaman.com/Aircraft/AirShows/Chino2006/Highlights/F86Mig15Chi...

The swept wing used on both the F-86 & MiG 15 was based on wartime German research. The MiG 15 first flew two months after the F-86.

Fly-by-wire is not a 'cheat code' to get an airplane to defy the laws of physics. FBW or not, airplanes must still adhere to the laws of physics.

I'd assume that nothing has changed since the 50's. If anything, manufacturers would probably work harder on maximising the efficiency of the design, because an efficient design in conjunction with FBW could possibly mean wondrous performance.

I'm sure Gulfstream or Bombardier may add a few touches for aesthetics, but that is probably where it stops. You can see that the airlines and manufacturers do not care for aesthetics on their airliners - this is especially true for both the 787 and the A350.

I certainly don't like the curved edges on the windshield - the plane lacks the definition that the 747 (or even 777) has. But this isn't the thread to argue about that.

My previous comment was an inconspicuous manner of slandering the looks of the new airliners - they do seem to have been engineered for aesthetics to some degree, but I don't think the designers will be able to get more leeway on this in the future.

I think they do a bit of both. Like at the F-117 ugly for the most part due to stealth, but good looking at the same time. But the B-2 the 2nd stealth plane looks awesome and smooth. Then you have the YF-23 weird but neat looking, EF-2000 looks front heavy when on the ground, but when flying looks like it will topple backwards.

I'd like to think that flying will remain glamorous but over the years it has turned from luxury to efficiency. Planes don't have to look good, they have to work, be cheap and be long lasting. The F-35 is an example. Compared to the F-22 it is, IMO, pretty ugly. But damn, I would much rather be in the cockpit in that thing rather than whatever is attacking it.

It's a shame that aircraft seem to have gotten a bit uglier but as said earlier, I'm sure psychology comes into it a bit and designers will use certain shapes to make their plane look more menacing.

ShaneG wrote on Aug 5^th, 2009 at 8:02am:


Speaking as an aspiring Aerodynamicist, and from what some of my professors have said, looks are the LAST thing considered in aircraft design. 

I haven't gotten to my aircraft design courses yet (next year!), but one of my professors told us the basics of the process.  First, you decide what you need.  For example, if you need a cargo plane to carry X amount of cargo, well you need at least X amount of lift plus a factor of safety.  So you go and figure out how your going to configure the plane, what airfoil your going to use, etc, and get to work.  Eventually you end up with an airplane, and at the end may tweak it to look better.

Most aircraft do not look the way they do for aesthetics.  The shape of the fueslage on a boeing is a well thought out design.  And if you look at supersonic fighters there's a method called Area Ruling that affects the way they look.  Look at the F-106 here.  Notice how the center of the fuselage narrows over the wing.  That's area ruling, it smoothes the transition of cross sectional area which has the effect of reducing wave drag (drag that occurs at supersonic speed).

Swept wings?  Definitely not for looks.  It encourages spanwise flow which gives you more lift and less drag, however, the traditional rear swept wing has at least one major disadvantage.  As the flow moves along the span, the boundary layer thickens, which can lead to separation at the wing tip.  That's stall, and in this case you stall at the wing tip, the center of pressure shifts forward, and you have whats called a pitch break-the plane will pull itself back which you can imagine would be bad. 

That's why in a few years, as we perfect composite technology like that in the 787, planes are going to begin changing.  We will see commercial jets with forward swept wings, because they offer the same benefits of rear swept wings without the problem of pitch break (instead of pitching up when it stalls, you'd pitch forward if the tip stalls first).  The only reason we don't have that right now is because traditional aluminum/titanium construction isn't strong enough for the shear forces you'd experience on a forward swept wing.

So basically, if you look at cars, a lot of the time they are styled, not designed to run great but to look good.  Airplanes aren't designed for looks.  Every 'cool' feature of an F/A-18 has it's roots in aerodynamics, from the leading edge strakes (the extentions that go by the cockpit, if you don't know what I'm talking about I can show a picture) to the little jagged point on the middle of the wing, all of those features are for aerodynamics.  If you design a plane to look good, it's not going to perform

Jayhawk Jake wrote on Sep 5^th, 2009 at 10:30am:
A retired Boeing engineer once told me, during the era prior to widebodies, Boeing stocked only one size of fuselage tube - just sliced it different lengths for the various models.  .  Enjoyed reading your piece.

ShaneG wrote on Sep 7^th, 2009 at 3:32pm:


They may be adjusted to look aesthetically pleasing, but overall the design is based on aerodynamics.  And in that sense all planes of the same type have the same basic features, whether it be the shape of the wings, the fuselage, the placement of engines, etc. 

On the FBW, I think you are confusing 'fly' with 'control'.  It would fly, easily, without fly by wire, but it would be hard to control without a computer helping. 

So my lazy-boy perched ontop of a GE-100 won't fly even if I equip it with FBW?  Damn!  Now what do I do with this engine?...(While looking at the old Snapper rider mower with an evil gleam in the eye!)

Leigh wrote on Oct 12^th, 2009 at 2:17am:

I always understood that low speed handling is improved by the FBW. This has been demonstrated at air shows like Farnborough many times. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4h7IYiZuMU&feature=related

Leigh wrote on Oct 12^th, 2009 at 3:41am:

Sorry. Can you repeat that - slowly.

Leigh wrote on Oct 12^th, 2009 at 4:04am:

I know what you're getting at. Providing everything is working properly it's theoretically impossible to stall an aircraft with FBW.

The control surfaces on most modern airliners & military aircraft are not directly connected to the pilot's controls whether they have FBW or not. They have "artificial feel" built into them. Aircraft without FBW have stall warning horns, warning call-outs & stick shakers/pushers to give the pilot warning of an impending stall. There's not much feel about it nowadays.

I think the 757 and other earlier 7X7 series share the same cross section but the 757 has a deeper belly.

In the interest of aerodynamics, why did Boeing change the forward upper cockpit section over the front windscreens?

It is now more of a bulbous shape rather than the clean lines of of the earlier generation. I would think this would cause more induced drag and decreased laminar flow at high mach numbers than the older design.

Was this just to give more (un-needed) headroom in the cockpit?

At any rate, it doesn't look as good as its predecessors.

Possibly, but I would have thought they could have seen that in the 707 and 727 wind tunnel tests.

I know just enough about aerodynamics to be dangerous.