Influence of aesthetics on aircraft designs

[TaiidanTomcat]

F-32A/C would be near IOC today had X-32 won the contest in 2001.

based on?

F-32A/C would be entering IOC today at a cost below $70 million/unit.

Remember when the contest was held in 2001 the price tag was supposed to be around $30 million each. (as long as we throwing out bold assertions, why not stick with the original estimates?)

And the A/C part is pretty clever too. Of course if you ignore the B, or you know 33 percent of the requirement (and the most difficult, demanding requirement at that) I agree though, the X-32 could have won if you just ignored that very big glaring obvious fault that was a requirement of the US and UK. But no it was looks, it lost on looks of course. STOVL was a make or break, and it didn't make it.

So I am sorry to say but when you have to complete a marathon and run only 15 miles, you lose no matter how great your 15 miles was.

Boeing had done so many cool things, and were ahead of us on schedule so much. It was like the tortoise and the hare.

They were ahead in testing because the X-32 arrived at Edwards first, but after mid air refueling issues, the X-32 was forced to land and refuel and Lockheed was able to continue thanks to mid air refueling and the X-35 quickly caught up.

And Aesthetics were the reason why we have this F-35 mess today, the wrong plane won because it looked better.

exactly, thats why the Apache and A-10 weren't selected for service. Looks are why the YF-23 won. Its all so obvious.

Boeing had done so many cool things, and were ahead of us on schedule so much. It was like the tortoise and the hare.

Yes, STOVL was the only area where the X-35 demonstration was decisively better. But Lockheed cheated in STOVL demonstration because X-35 was considerably smaller and lighter than the F-35 as it didn't have to demonstrate weapons bay, resulting a much narrower, lighter, and slimmer airframe than the hulking beast that the F-35 would eventually become. The X-32 had weapons bay and was a closer representation to what would become the F-32 than what the X-35 was to the F-35.

You are aware that massive changes were already in store for the X-32 since even before the first flight?

The X-32 beat the X-35 in all other parameters, such as range, cost, and development prowess.

How do you measure that last one? Its weird too because the X-35 lift fan won aviation engineering awards...

How about signature? How about hot gas ingestion issues and other safety concerns? Pretty big declarations all around considering the selection process was highly classified. And in the end, as the more successful test aircraft was chosen, (the X-35.) Which did things in the test process that the other test aircraft wasn't capable of and that the X-32 was already going to be redesigned just like the X-35, maybe its a bit odd to measure very heavily some aspects of the test phase and so lightly the other phases. For example, you say that the X-32 was superior but not in testing but it would have been in production --and then in the next breath using talk of the testing phase to validate your argument.

So are we ignoring the test phase or using it as evidence that the X-32 was superior? Ill tell you right now, the X-32 would have looked a lot better if the STOVL version worked. based on that it did lose on looks. I know it looked even worse when they had to remove pieces as well

 

[chuck4]

Funny, since I heard that the X-35 was the one which proved to be better than the X-32 in most ways, especially STOVL.

Yes, STOVL was the only area where the X-35 demonstration was decisively better. But Lockheed cheated in STOVL demonstration because X-35 was considerably smaller and lighter than the F-35 as it didn't have to demonstrate weapons bay, resulting a much narrower, lighter, and slimmer airframe than the hulking beast that the F-35 would eventually become. The X-32 had weapons bay and was a closer representation to what would become the F-32 than what the X-35 was to the F-35.

The X-32 beat the X-35 in all other parameters, such as range, cost, and development prowess. If the X-32 won the JSF contest, then F-32A/C would be entering IOC today at a cost below $70 million/unit.

X-32 only had weapon bay on one side. Even so it weighed too much to proper demo S\VTOL.

 

[AeroFranz]

sooooo....aesthetics.

 

[SlowMan]

F-32A/C would be near IOC today had X-32 won the contest in 2001.

based on?

The F-32A/C were a separate airframe from the F-32B, so any technical problem with the F-32B would not affect the schedule of the F-32A/C.

This was not the case with the F-35, where the F-35A and B were the common airframe and the F-35C the unique airframe. This made sense from the performance perspective but didn't make sense in terms of risk management, coupling the most challenging version with the greatest-volume version. The F-35A/B common airframe started as F-35A from which the F-35B would be derived. This was stopped in 2005, when Lockheed figured that the completed F-35A would be too heavy for the F-35B conversion(X-35B was a converted X-32A after the completion of testing), and started over by making the F-35B as the lead problem. Now any technical problems arising from the F-35B would appear in the F-35A, so both are doomed.

This would not have happened with the F-32A/C, which were less sensitive to weight gains than the F-32B and these two versions would have proceeded without a delay even if the F-32B ran into trouble.

STOVL was a make or break, and it didn't make it.

I doubt X-35B would have done as well as it did if it was sized to demonstrate an internal weapons bay like the X-32 was required to.

You are aware that massive changes were already in store for the X-32 since even before the first flight?

The changes would not have resulted in a massive weight increase observed in the F-35.

How do you measure that last one? Its weird too because the X-35 lift fan won aviation engineering awards...

Boeing delivered the goods on budget and months ahead of schedule. Lockheed exceeded the budget even in the X-35 days, and this should have been the warning sign.

 

[yasotay]

sooooo....aesthetics.

You must warn people AeroFranz, when you are going to do that. Spraying coffee through my nose is neither attractive or healthy. Mrs.yasotay thought she was going to have to call an ambulance. ;D

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

This was not the case with the F-35, where the F-35A and B were the common airframe and the F-35C the unique airframe. This made sense from the performance perspective but didn't make sense in terms of risk management, coupling the most challenging version with the greatest-volume version.

But I thought you said the X-32 lost on looks exclusively? Suddenly the F-35 makes better sense in performance? and yet was chosen based on looks?

I doubt X-35B would have done as well as it did if it was sized to demonstrate an internal weapons bay like the X-32 was required to.

I agree, a heavier version of an X-35 complete with internal will never work...

The X-32 had plenty of problems, enough problems and questions marks and redesigns in store that saying it lost on looks alone is simply false. In order for it to lose on looks alone it had to be the clearly superior aircraft and it wasn't -- It had issues like a completely redesigned tail needed, for example. How would the redesign affect not just weight but VLO? How would the long spindly landing gear hold up to the controlled crash of a carrier landing?

It Looks bad when you have pop stalls, it looks bad when you have to remove pieces from the aircraft, it looks bad when you have to test in a different area to help your VSTOL characteristics, It looks bad when massive redesigns are in store, it looks bad when your competitor demonstrates a STOVL sortie while breaking the sound barrier too. Looks count all right, X-32 lost on looks.

 

[SlowMan]

But I thought you said the X-32 lost on looks exclusively?

That and STOVL.

Suddenly the F-35 makes better sense in performance?

The X-35 won solely based on its demonstrated STOVL performance, which made the USMC the most vocal backer of the X-35. The X-35 was behind the X-32 in all other factors, such as time to delivery, cost, and range.

that saying it lost on looks alone is simply false.

Looks and STOVL.

It had issues like a completely redesigned tail needed, for example.

This wasn't a problem and not considered as the part of JSF competition process. This change request came in too late after the development and construction began, so Boeing wasn't responsible and Boeing only had to demonstrate what was originally required of them.

Should the JSF competition start all over, the lessons learned from both X-32 and X-35 would produce a following design.

1. Lift fan is not a viable option due to weight issue, so it will have to be a direct lift system.
2. There should be a mini-afterburner fitted to the vertical lift duct to boost thrust.
3. Their would be an F-35B style air intake door right behind the cockpit to draw in cold air from above and minimize the effect of hot jet exhaust circulating back to the engine.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

But I thought you said the X-32 lost on looks exclusively?

That and STOVL.

that saying it lost on looks alone is simply false.

Looks and STOVL.

So it failed to meet a major requirement and it failed? because earlier you said this:

And Aesthetics were the reason why we have this F-35 mess today, the wrong plane won because it looked better.

and then

If the looks didn't affect the decision, then the X-32 would have won over the X-35 as it was functionally better, less drag, longer range than the X-35.etc.

Functionally better except the STOVL function part. Whether you like it or not, that was a major requirement. If blaming looks is the narrative you want to continue you are welcome to that, but even you admit it wasn't a worthwhile STOVL aircraft and STOVL was a deal breaker. It reminds me off a student who fails all of his exams and then blames the teacher because "he does't like me so he failed me" :

So conversely if I produced a beautiful aircraft that also failed requirements, it would be automatically chosen based on its beauty?

The X-35 won solely based on its demonstrated STOVL performance, which made the USMC the most vocal backer of the X-35. The X-35 was behind the X-32 in all other factors, such as time to delivery, cost, and range.

What did the UK think? How do you know anything about the highly classified selection process, or even if the X-32 was considered ugly to the people who make the decisions? Did the people in charge of the process express like or dislike for the aesthetics of either aircraft? Or are these just more wild guesses like how in alternate universe land the X-32 is perfect?

 

[AeroFranz]

sooooo....aesthetics.

You must warn people AeroFranz, when you are going to do that. Spraying coffee through my nose is neither attractive or healthy. Mrs.yasotay thought she was going to have to call an ambulance. ;D

My apologies, Sir! I owe you a cup of coffee

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

sooooo....aesthetics.

You must warn people AeroFranz, when you are going to do that. Spraying coffee through my nose is neither attractive or healthy. Mrs.yasotay thought she was going to have to call an ambulance. ;D

My apologies, Sir! I owe you a cup of coffee

Maybe a new keyboard too

 

[Reaper]

Hi! I wanted to warm up the thread, since as a former conceptual aircraft design engineer, I am currently studying industrial design and investigating which categories of planes have more freedom of aesthetics/style. Check the following overview and would you agree?

Plane category + design discipline (interaction, industrial/product/exterieur, interieur) involved.

 

[AeroFranz]

Hmmm...in general i would say that attention to aesthetics in most cases comes at the expense of a performance optimized solution. Certain elements don't cost much in terms of mass/performance, others entail a high cost.
Example: you see a proliferation of winglets shapes not because aero engineers keep coming up with better ones. I would bet most are within 5% of performance. However it's a distinctive stylistic element, and it doesn't cost much to implement in one shape versus another.
Now, if you were to, for some reason, decide to make a fuselage square as opposed to round, you would pay an enormous structural penalty, hence nobody's doing it for pressurized aircraft.
So every time a certain aspect of an air vehicle's design is not critical, you are more likely to see aesthetical exercises, at least in the commercial world. Military customers, to a certain extent, are less sensitive to looks. A consumer product, OTOH, can almost entirely be sold on looks alone, so it's biased towards aesthetics, even though it might entail a heavy "engineering" penalty.
So you have to ask yourself: who is the customer? what are their priorities? How much performance/weight are they willing to sacrifice?

 

[Reaper]

I talked to ICON about the A5 and they told me that engineering and aesthetics design had the same importance reflected through respective people in management positions. Engineering and aesthetics design trade offs were made in terms of experience design. E.g. why do I need the best acceleration if the only way I can indentify it by checking my instruments and not through a strong push in the back. And that makes a lot of sense to me in terms of a consumer product.

 

[yasotay]

I would argue that fighter planes are most likely to have the greatest need. Ask Boeing re: JAST. If you have spent any time around Air Force fighter pilots the fun they had/have at the expense of the lowly A-10 pilot was legion. No self respecting fighter pilot wants to fly an ugly fighter. There is the old pilot maxim: "If it looks good it flies good!"

 

[Archibald]

"Si un avion est beau alors il volera bien". Marcel Dassault famously had both Mirage IV (in 1960) and Mirage 2000 (in 1978) vertical tails redesigned after their first flights. Because he found the original ugly. And yes, it got structure engineers banging their heads against walls, but "what the boss want... "
To Tonton Marcel credit, the Mirage IV original tail was indeed quite ugly.

 

[riggerrob]

The "shell" of Bell's losing design for the Army's LOH competition, the OH-4, was redone at Bell marketing's behest in accordance with the recommendation of an industrial design consultant to create the Bell 206 JetRanger for the commercial helicopter market. Of course, this is a lot easier to do with a helicopter, since the exterior is more of a facade than it is on an airplane. It's the dynamics (rotor and drive train) and tail boom/fins that are critical.

The first half-bubble windshield is clearly based upon the original Bell 47's bubble. When the first version of the Jet Ranger failed the Army contest, Bell re-styled (dolphin nose) it to make it more appealing to civilians.

Now consider how the latest Bell 505 has reverted to the single-curve windshield that meets nose curves on the tangent. The 505 is basically a 206 Jet Ranger drive train hidden under a new composite shell. The composite shell is now cheaper to build that a rivetted, sheet aluminum shell.

Also consider how the 505's nose contours remind us of currently well-selling light helicopters like Robinson and MD/Hughes 500.

 

[riggerrob]

One of the silliest parts of Bell 206 Jet Ranger styling is the swept vertical fin. On an aircraft that slow, sweeping aerodynamic surfaces makes zero difference to stability or control. In this case, swept tail surfaces are purely aesthetic.
This follows a trend that started back during the 1950s, when trans-sonic fighters (e.g. NAA F-86 Sabre) adopted swept surfaces to reduce drag. The trend continued with swept surfaces on Century series fighters (F-100 Super Saber, F-101 Voodoo, F-102, F-105 Thunderchief, F-106, etc.).
But Cessna, Maule, Beechcraft, etc. all copied the swept vertical fins of supersonic fighters in an effort to make their light planes look faster. Granted, squared surfaces are cheaper to build in sheet aluminum. But swept surfaces are actually slightly detrimental to flying characteristics. You actually need slightly bigger swept surfaces to do the same work as straight surfaces. Note how later versions of Cessna 150 need massive dorsal fins to maintain yaw stability.
If you look deep into the aerodynamics, Mooney's forward-swept tail surfaces are slightly better from a control perspective.

 

[riggerrob]

Sometimes aesthetics just get silly.
Consider the elliptical wings of Supermarine Spitfire and Heinkel 112. They matched a theoretical attempt at the perfect lift distribution, but wartime construction methods were never precise enough to extract all the hoped-for performance. The complex, double-curved leading edges also slowed Spitfire construction. The Castle Browich shadow factory was a year late starting production because of difficulties stretch-forming the complex curve leading edges of Spitfire wings. Also note how the last airplanes in the Spitfire line: Spiteful and Seafang dispenced with fancy elliptical wings.
Note how when other manufacturers (e.g. Reggiane and Republic P-47 Thunderbolt) tried to duplicate the Spitfire's elliptical lift distribution, they simplified construction by building straight leading edge and pushed all the complex elliptical curves to the trailing edge.

A dozen civilian projects ahve copied Spitfire styling even when they did not understand the aerodynamics or appreciate how much more expensive elliptical surfaces are to manufacture.

A far wiser copy would be based upon the gracefully curved flying surfaces of Hawker's Hunter jet fighter. Hawker wisely copied that planform on their later Harrier and Hawk jets. That Hawker planform with its swept leading and trailing edges and elliptical curvature on the outboard leading edges has been adopted since the turn of the century (AD 2000) in the Schumman wing now favored by competitive skydivers, paragliders, sailplane and power racers (both Formula One and Sportsman Classes). Schumman wings have gently elliptically tapered leading edges, with most of the sweep in the last few feet/meters before the tips. Schumman wings also have slightly swept trailing edges all in an effort to push wing tip vortices as far outboard as possible and to minimize pressure differentials when top skin air meets bottom skin air out past the wing tips. The slightly swept trailing edges help push those vortices even farther outboard. A few of the latest airliners also use Schumman wing tips and winglets to extract the last ounce of performance. True Schumman planforms are really only efficient with the precision recently made possible by composite construction and expensive female molds.