Simviation Forums

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?

The swept-wing of the F-86 was incorporated for two reasons:
-It increased the aircrafts performance at high speed.
-It made the plane appear faster and more aggressive than the MiG-15.

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

The swept-wing of the F-86 was incorporated for two reasons:
-It increased the aircrafts performance at high speed.
-It made the plane appear faster and more aggressive than the MiG-15.

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

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

The swept-wing of the F-86 was incorporated for two reasons:
-It increased the aircrafts performance at high speed.
-It made the plane appear faster and more aggressive than the MiG-15.

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

True that But the MIG-15 was much smaller and i never like the tail design on it which made it look "cute"

But the MIG-15 was much smaller and i never like the tail design on it which made it look "cute"

Have a look at this photo & tell me which one looks the more aggressive. http://www.richard-seaman.com/Aircraft/ ... no2006.jpg

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.

But the MIG-15 was much smaller and i never like the tail design on it which made it look "cute"

Have a look at this photo & tell me which one looks the more aggressive. http://www.richard-seaman.com/Aircraft/ ... no2006.jpg

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.

I would say the neither looks more aggressive they are about the same

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.

The 787 was designed with aesthetics in mind. They may not be your particular favorite, but tell me that that pointed nose, pointed tail and HS are just for flight dynamics.

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.

True, the 787 was. I've read something about that before.

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.

The 787 was designed with aesthetics in mind. They may not be your particular favorite, but tell me that that pointed nose, pointed tail and HS are just for flight dynamics.

Indeed. I suspect there was a fair amount of "green" BS in the design - what they really wanted was something that you could look at - just as with any brand - and go "ahhhh, it's a 787/Dreamliner*"

*note the catchy name.

95% marketing, and hence aesthetics, IMEHO.

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.

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.

I agree, unless the plane attacking it is an F-22.

[quote]
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?