Yes, I'm quite serious. I think that most of commercial planes design is seriously dated, not much different than in 60's and 70's when was the evolution of tubeliners, for example. Look at Cessna, all planes looks like they were stuck in time-travel machine and suddenly appered in 21st century. Ok, there is few planes that I really how they look - Piaggio Avanti (most beautiful twin prop to date), I can handle C337 Skymaster design also, cause it is kind of unique, Boeing 757 - I don't really know why I like this skinny long tube with wings, bu I simply do... but still design errrrrrrrrr don't exist here. Boeing 787 tried some new "design moves" but nothing spectacular really, I don't even like how does it look.

 

To avoid confusion, I'm talking here only about the looks, ofcourse aerodynamics is on the first place, but still it is not an excuse for unoriginality design wise. And of course I'm not talking about fighter jets, they are a kind of their own. Just GA and commercial are mostly stuck in bloody 60's/70's.

What's your opinion about this? I would love to see some pics of beautiful planes here, I'm sure that I missed few of these. :rolleyes:

I think someone is forgetting about that pregnant Hippo bounding across the skies. There was certainly nothing like that in the 60's and 70's.

 

Regards,

Ró.

Yes it is true, the concept of the 707 is still the same today, only we have modernized with lighter materials, fewer engines, more efficient engines, electronics, computers....etc. But a 707 and a 787 are still the same concept really.

 

Big difference is you used to be able to smoke a cigar while flying a 707, which was kind of cool B)

 

I think someone is forgetting about that pregnant Hippo bounding across the skies. There was certainly nothing like that in the 60's and 70's.

 

Regards,

Ró.

 

 

Sorry, but that is the most ugly plane that was "bounding across the skies". Keep an eye longer on that plane and you will expect of it to vomit. :lol:

But you used to be able to smoke a cigar while flying a 707, which was kind of cool

 

Unless you were the poor soul having to sit next to the guy with the cigar. <cough> :-)

 

In aviation, form tends to follow function and evolution is far more likely than revolution.  The whole risk/reward thing. 

 

There have certainly been innovative designs (from a stylistic point of view) in the GA world besides just the Avanti - which I personally find kind of bulbous looking, BTW.  Look at some of the Rutan designs, for example.  But when it comes time to put something into production, it has to be more than just a pretty face, or merely different for the sake of being different.

 

You want different?  Take a look at the Hondajet with its odd engine mounts and sort of bug-eyed look.  Doesn't do much for me, stylistically, but it sure sounds like it'll be a good VLJ in spite of it all. :-)

 

Scott

The other thing is safety, a modern jetliner is much safer then it was 40 years ago. The A320 in the Hudson and the recent Lion Air show what these modern airframes can take.

Pe11e, on 16 Apr 2013 - 6:02 PM, said:

Yes, I'm quite serious. I think that most of commercial planes design is seriously dated, not much different than in 60's and 70's when was the evolution of tubeliners, for example. Look at Cessna, all planes looks like they were stuck in time-travel machine and suddenly appered in 21st century. Ok, there is few planes that I really how they look - Piaggio Avanti (most beautiful twin prop to date), I can handle C337 Skymaster design also, cause it is kind of unique, Boeing 757 - I don't really know why I like this skinny long tube with wings, bu I simply do... but still design errrrrrrrrr don't exist here. Boeing 787 tried some new "design moves" but nothing spectacular really, I don't even like how does it look.

 

To avoid confusion, I'm talking here only about the looks, ofcourse aerodynamics is on the first place, but still it is not an excuse for unoriginality design wise. And of course I'm not talking about fighter jets, they are a kind of their own. Just GA and commercial are mostly stuck in bloody 60's/70's.

 

What's your opinion about this? I would love to see some pics of beautiful planes here, I'm sure that I missed few of these. :rolleyes:

 

What has happened is a formula of a proven design has been created. The old saying if it ain't broke don't fix it applies. A solid design has been created that just works. It took allot of trial and error to get to the 707 model and it has proven to be the most efficient design for passenger/jet transport. What you saw at the dawn of aviation was engineers trying to 'figure it out' sort of speak. Throwing many unique designs out there to see what's the most logical in the long run which ended up being the 707 model. We've seen things over the years like, blimps, cars that transformed into planes, DC9 types, Flying boats, Concords, and flying wing concepts for passenger travel in the vein of the B2 Spirit. The tube just works. Heck I thought we'd have fling cars by now (2013) but that hasn't happened. Another problem we have today is competition is gone. Airbus and Boeing are the only real major players and standard bearers today. This unfortunately is the case when a technology is no longer new, things stagnate. The music industry as an example has stagnated. Flight Simming has stagnated. We no longer have whole worlds for combat arenas being developed by major houses like we once did. EF2000, Falcon 4.0, and Total Air War are a thing of the past and have been replaced with less substance titles like Ace Combat for Xbox. Flight Simulator with it's detailed globe has been gutted in favor of Flight. I could go on and on. The tube just works like the car that is basically unchanged since the 50's. We have modifications but a car is a car at the end of the day just like an airliner is an airliner or a bus is a bus. We've reached a workable solution in these designs and now subtle modifications is all engineers are going for. The last big mind blowing innovation we've had in our lifetime was the Microchip then the Internet (Smart Phones some would say is another one). I can't see anything major happening with a proven design like the airliner tube unless we pick up a serious interest in space flight again (which we will).

@@Dillon
 

I agree with everything you said mate, very true, and very detailed post.

Car manufacturers work everyday on design, but that is mostly to attract new customers. Airplane customers mostly care for safety, fuel efficiency, comfort, price... design is the last thing.

But still no one can tell me that current tubeliners design is the best aerodynamic wise. Better aerodynamics than Concorde? Yeah right. Concorde was a failure because of fuel efficiency, but mach 2 is not a cheap speed. I think that every company has it's own prototype of a future airliner, but the cost to testi it and  to build it, is way too high. Too much to take risk, especially when Airbus and Boeing are doing just fine on the market at the present.

Some aircraft dating from the 60's because they were so well built and so well designed are still with us.

Better aerodynamics than Concorde?

um... Yes. Concorde was designed to fly fast, so it has to. It would fall out of the sky at the sorts of speeds a modern tube liner can slow down to. The 'best' aerodynamics depend on what you're trying to achieve. Ever seen a delta winged glider?

 

Simple fact is that airlines want to cram as many people into as small a space as possible, and as much as they hate it, to do otherwise would put flying out of the reach of many current passengers. The result is a tube with a couple of (generally) engines strapped to the wings. It's demand driven, not design driven.

The OP ranged from Cessnas to commercial jets.  OK here is something more modern and innovative, and particularily the Honda designed engines (to be produced by GE under license from Honda). Also check out the wikipedia page on this one.

 

Corporate page:

http://world.honda.com/HondaJet/

 

Wiki page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_HA-420_HondaJet

 

 

Yes. Concorde was designed to fly fast, so it has to. It would fall out of the sky at the sorts of speeds a modern tube liner can slow down to.

 

Concorde could fly slow just like other "similar" aircraft, it would not fall of the sky, but it was very inefficient to fly in that way.

The OP ranged from Cessnas to commercial jets.  OK here is something more modern and innovative, and particularily the Honda designed engines (to be produced by GE under license from Honda). Also check out the wikipedia page on this one.

 

Corporate page:

http://world.honda.com/HondaJet/

 

Wiki page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_HA-420_HondaJet

 

Yep, saw the HondaJet already, and to be honest I really like it, a bit of fresh air in the design department.

 

Yes. Concorde was designed to fly fast, so it has to. It would fall out of the sky at the sorts of speeds a modern tube liner can slow down to.

 

Concorde could fly slow just like other "similar" aircraft, it would not fall of the sky, but it was very inefficient to fly in that way.

 

Concorde had a delta wing, so the stall speed would be significantly higher than for a comparable aircraft. Delta wings are good for going fast, but bad for going slow, which means you'll need more runway for take-offs and landings.

 

Although planes still look roughly the same on the outside, an awful lot has changed on the inside, just compare the cockpit of a 747-100 to that of a 747-8 for example, then there's lighter materials and structures, aerodynamic enhancements like winglets & raked wingtips, better engines, etc. Modern airliners use something like half the fuel of a 707 and are significantly quieter. All this is down to design by the way. I know that often when people talk about 'the design' they mean the looks, but actually everything on a plane (and most other objects) was designed. Someone thought about what they wanted to achieve and then came up with an object that would achieve that.

Concorde had a delta wing, so the stall speed would be significantly higher than for a comparable aircraft. Delta wings are good for going fast, but bad for going slow, which means you'll need more runway for take-offs and landings.

 

Well, Concorde Vref about 155-160 knots is not significantly higher than for example 744 or A380 Vref. Long runway for takeoffs was required due several reasons, mostly because at take off roll concorde's wing produced no lift, so rotation was purely by elevons momentum.