Here are some shots of the Tunnan, that I took at the Kristianstad airshow last month.
How do you like this one? 🙂
Thanks Robban those are excellent pictures, i like the J-29 a lot to tell you the truth i feel i like more Swedish aircraft than French in general except by the Rafale which i really love, the swedish usually have a really nice design philosophy, the Tunnan, Lansen, Viggen, Gripen are nice aircraft but i do not like the J-35 i found it too 1950s.
I can not say the same about the Russians that sometimes design things that might be fuctional but not beautiful such as the Su-7, MiG-27, Su-9, An-12, An-26, Tu-142, Tu-128, Tu-22 or La-5, Yak-36, Yak-38, Yak-25, Yak-28.
Here are my 10 favorite WWII propeller driven fighter aircraft
Fighters:
I really like the P-51
the second in the list is the Me-109G
followed by the Ki-61
number 4 is the FW-1９０
Number 5 is the F-4U
number 6 is the MiG-3
number 7 is the Supermarine Spitifire
number 8 is the He-112
Number 9 is the MC202 Folggore
number 10 is the J2M raiden
Flogger i completely agree with you and your assesment .
To that i’ll also like to add that the performance and the way the aircraft is marketed also plays a pivotal role . A sukhoi wouldnt have been the so beutiful aircraft in they eyes of so many novice fans had it not done the COBRA back when aircraft displays were geting monotonous with routined showing little eninuity . Furthermore it had the image that it was such a capable aircraft ( even though many novice’s of the time couldnt tell why) . Ditto was the case with the F-14 , it was something that was marketed with the TOP GUN and became the latest FAD and every kid back then wanted to fly the TOMCAT ( atleas in my high school back then) . With the F-22 one got the impression when they started marketing it with the RAPTOR bird . If someone can find the original CD where they superimposed the f-22 with the raptor it was an instant hit and everytime I look at the f-22 i get that image at the back of my head.
Bring_It_On
Aircraft beauty is also a fashion, we have to see that we call aircraft beautiful for many reasons, a new aircraft is more advanced, not necesarilly more beautiful, nonetheless we have to see aircraft are not designed to be beautiful but functional, however we consider funcionality one of the elements behind beauty
If we see the aircraft evolution we find some aircraft that in their age we called them a beauty but are not any more, few will stick out throught out the ages as really beautiful beyond their time, many will be forgotten and even called ugly aircraft.
Because nationalism, fashion and novelty are factors that influence us when we call an aircraft a beauty
Let us see the evolution path to the F-35 from the early jet fighters
the begining is the havilland Mosquito
the Meteor just switched the piston engines for Jet engines
later let`s us pass to the P-59 where the engines already were just flanking the fuselage, the fuselage was sandwiched by those engines.
The Banshee XF-2 was quit similar but little bit more refined
In the F-3H we can see a reduction in the size of the rear end fuselage with relation to the engines also we see more complex inlets
The F-4 Phantom II reduced further the rear fuselage size and was fitted with newly designed vertical Variable Geometry ramps inlets.
The A-5 reduced the rear fuselage to an almost to a vestigial rear fuselage fairing and modified the vertical ramps to horizontal ramps inlets
the F-14 Tomcat flattened that vestigial fuselage, added two fins and Variabke geometry wings
The next evolution splitted in two the MiG-29 continued the flatenned fuselage as an extension of the wings added to LERXes; and the other branch The F-15 almost eliminated the rear end fuselage as we humans have no tail contrary to monkeys and apes hehehe
The ultra modern F-22 combined stealth faceting with the classic lines seen in the F-15.
and that shape has evolved further in the F-35
Of all those i only like the F-14, F-15, A-5, MiG-29 and F-22
Just go to any Chinese page and you’ll see lots of them. 😉 They put a different sticker on the side and swapped engines but it’s about like a Dodge Stealth/ Mitsubishi 3000 GT. Same damn thing for the most part.
I feel also is part aircraft evolution see for example this path
however i only like the Lavi and F-16 stage hehehe
Mig, did you sy you did not like the F-86 and Mig 15? (aplogies if otherwise). If this is the case, why do you like the J-29? Do you feel it is more graceful? Has more character?
I do not like to F-86 and MiG-15 because they look like pipes with wings, but i like among those pipes the J-29 Tunnan because the aircraft does not look too much like a pipe has some angularity, the cabin looks quit flushed with the fuselage and the inlet is more conical than cylindrical, the inlet looks more with a parabolic contour than a simple cylinder
Other fighter contemporary to the J-29 were little bit more simple or primitive looking such as the La-150
The La-150 is not a thing i consider beautiful it looks rather like a huge toy
The MiG-9 perhaps was one of the ugliest MiGs Arten Mikoyan ever designed from my point of view
others were really just the begining to develop the modern shape such as the XF-10X and the F-98 but definitively are quit ugly i do not like them but of course that is just my personal opinion
The F-98 Scorpion looks uglier from my humble point of view than even a real scorpion
However i like the F-11 looks quit modern
The F-4/F-6 Skiray also looks okay and is one of the few aircraft of the late 1940s and early 1950s i like a little
American: F-100, F-4, B-1.
British : Whirlwind, DH Hornet, Typhoon, MB5, BaE Hawk.
Italy : Mc202, Fiat Rs-14.
Germany: He-100, Arado 234, B&W 139, Dora
Russia : Su-27.
France : M2k, M4k,IV, Rafale.
Sweden :Tunnan, Gripen.
Here are some Swedish beauties
Psychologically it can be said that a long large radome set between two large intakes is “naturally” pleasing to the eye because it is a penile suggestion.
I agree in part it is true that phallic subconcious images and suggestions that aircraft imprint in our minds have to up to certain level some influence in us to consider one aircraft more appealing than others.
But i do not think is the only factor influencing people aesthetics, i rather would consider that mathematical proportion also plays a great part in what we consider beauty, Fibonacci`s Golden ratio has a great degree of influence in nature`s structural fittness and even in what we consider good music, according to some researchers “good music” has something to do with mathematical proportions.
Also i would say symmetry in part produces less dragg and looks better, aircraft in many ways are mathematical structures and like music have a degree of mathematical equilibrium.
Sometimes aircraft remind us biological entities like whales, Dolphins, sharks, insects, so i think several factors influence what we call beautiful in an aircraft because we humans also love some qualities in the animal kingdom.
The Ka-50 is called Black shark, the Su-27 was nicknamed crane, The Ka-52 alligator, the T-4 has been compared to a Dolpfin, several aircraft have a shark mouth on the radome
The MiG-23 was also called crocodile.
Also some aircraft look more powerful than others, sometimes they have bigger air inlets that suggests more powerful aircraft and indeed they usually have more powerful engines, for example the MiG-25 and MiG-31.
And up to a level we have preferences based upon what we understand about aviation, in my case for example i like VG wings because i feel they are good for several flight regimes.
We also have to consider the real flying qualities of an aircraft, these also influence pilots and up to a degree any one
This thread is about beauty isn’t it?
Any uglier than that and you have an F-35. :p
Robban
The thread is about what aircraft are considered beautiful and why? but is not to compete or say this is more beautiful, it is just a personal opinion where we can tell those aircraft we consider beautiful and perhaps at the end of the day we might see which aircraft are the most popular aircraft.
If he likes the F-22 it is okay, if you do not like it it`s okay.
For example i like the F-22, you do not, some people like the F-104 i do not.
Why i do like the F-22 and i do not like the F-104 is simple. the F-22 looks like an F-15 with a diamond cross section and some degree of faceting.
To the contrary the F-104 is not beautiful to my taste i do not like its tail niether its wings and inlets.
I do not like the F-105, F-102, F-106, the F-117, B-2, F-101.
for example the kfir and the F-106 both are deltas but i do not like the F-106
I like the Kfir air intakes and canards, but the F-106/F-102 intakes even they are not ugly i feel that are less symmtric why? because the frontal cross section in the Kfir is almost a circle, the canards also makes them look more advanced and without the sensation a tail is missing
The F-106 has to the contrary a not so beautiful windshield, in the Kfir it is still a round cross section cabin and windshield but in the F-104 it is a triangle 
I love specially this take the Kfir looks powerful
However i can not say the same of the CF-105 Arrow, I do not like its wings neither its cabin, it is little bit like the F-106 but perhaps it has better looking air intakes but i still feel it looks too coarse
The F-107 Rapier also is kind of bizzarre but i like it more than the CF-105 in spite it is not so different from the CF-105
You won’t know PS even when it bites you. We make it a sport and an art now to spot PS pics, that J-10B one certainly isn’t. Under close up, it’s full of panel, aerodynamic and feature details that are distinctly functional and requires a level of engineering understanding that is way beyond the level of a prankster. Furthermore this is not the only pictures of the two seater out there, and the pictures comes in different angles and sizes.
The other picture is a JH-7A. I don’t see any “Phantom” on either the JH-7A (which has Jaguar like intakes) and the J-8II (which has MiG-23 like intakes). Both of them have a larger nose and lacks the downward beak look of the F-4.
Flogger
Z-10 pics still too small for me to make up my aesthetic mind about it. I do kind of like the Russian Hind and Hokum. While I like the bubble canopy of the J-10B, I didn’t like the way the structural spine mess up the basic lines of the J-10. I like the JH-7A because of its clean lines, and yes, it looks better with the one piece canopy, less wing fences and the double rear ventral fins. Come to think of it the JH-7A’s cockpit looks both narrow and tight compared to the J-10B’s.
I feel those three aircraft are cool looking, the J-8II is a more beautiful fighter than the F-4D and even F-4E to my taste i know many people will disagree with my opinion and it`s okay because that is just my personal point of view, The F-4E looks very beautiful from the front view but i hate its rear part, looks ancient to me and what i have read it was not well designed the horizontal planes were canted due to stability problems, i guess the J-8II in that sense is more modern.
Definitively the J-8II has F-4 influence but at least from my personal point of view the delta wing and J-8 fuselage give it a cooler look than that fairing and dropped horizontal tailplanes the F-4 Phantom II has.
The Su-15 looks also ancient compared to the J-8II with that conical radome of the first Su-15s, the early Su-15s can not be compared to the forward fuselage of the J-8II that is remind us the F-4E and MiG-23, even the later Su-15TM are not as gracious as the J-8II in terms of beauty
The rear part is what i dislike in the F-4
However i love the front part in the F-4E, specially those large intakes and long radome that is couple with a large tandem cockpit, the integration looks better to me than the MiG-23UB twin seater cockpit fuselage in terms of pure aesthetics
Frankly I don’t like any of the stealth aircraft. They’re boring and looks like they’re designed by a computer rather than by a human.
Like Mr. Flogger here I don’t like the pipe with wings look of many fifties aircraft. But among the round inlet planes I do like the Fishbed, the J-8I and the YE-152. There is something rackish about their delta wings coupled with the design of their elevators.
At first I like the F-16 but that was beginning to bore me to death too with its generic ness. Ditto with its ilk that followed the same path—Lavi/J-10/FCK-1/FC-1 etc,. However the F-15 is something that still grows on me. For some reason I never liked the Tomcat either, due to its proportions but I love the Hornet which is the most elegant flying thing today. But I hold the F-4 Phantom above all else American, followed by the F-5Es and the Starfighters.
With Chinese planes the J-10 gets boring a bit. I just love the ‘raw” but rakish look of the J-7s, the J-8s and the Fantans, though the J-6 just looks plain ugly but brutish.
Never really like any of the Brit planes of any age, just something quirky in their designs.
Ah the French. They never forget beauty with function. The Mirage III, V and its copies like the Cheetah and the Kfir, will always be among the most beautiful aircraft ever made. The Mirage 2000 is a beaut too and so is the Rafale.
I love the German WWII designs, especially the Me-109. That thing always look like it was meant to kill.
The P-51 didn’t appeal to me but the P-40 Warhawk does. I like brutish looking designs.
Didn’t like Soviet WWII designs, but I like them more from the MiG-21 up, including the MiG-23, MiG-29, Su-24, the Su-15, the MiG-25/31, and the Flankers. They really got character, sleek yet brutish with the predominant message saying I’m an evil commie and I’m out to kill you capitalist dogs.
Crobato
The Chinese have several aircraft they are kind of cool, for example i like the JH-7A because it looks like a huge Mitsubishi F-1/T2 and does not have the ugly looking tail fairing that characterized the F-4, F-1/T2 and Sepecat Jaguar.
I do not like the version with the framed windshield though, i only like the latest version with frameless windshield
Also the latest versions has a nicer air inlet, it looks more modern, its ventral twin fins are less coarse too
The J-8II also looks cool nicer than the Su-15, the J-8I looks also better than the really coarse and unrefine Ye-150A
also i have not seen a Z-10 picture up close but the Helicopter seems a cool one, perhaps it is one of the coolest looking attack helicopters.
The J-10B looks cooler than the single seat J-10 because i feel the J-10 single seat has a very small cabin and it is very close to the radome.
What about the F-86 Sabre?
Drut
You know personally and i mean this is just my personal opinion, i do not like too much the F-86 niether the MiG-17 or other jets with nose inlet air intakes, i feel they are missing something and that some thing was a radar, that aerodynamic fashion proved to be limited in terms of avionics, for example this aircraft had limited space for a radar, later aircraft were design with side inlets, personally i feel these aircraft just look like huge manned pipes with wings and a tail, i found them quit simple unrefine and coarse.
The MiG-15 and F-86 were two of the best fighters of all times but i do not feel at least from my personal point of view they are cool looking.
Perhaps not as famous or with all the glory of air to air combat i like more their 1950s contemporary A-4
Drone i agree the Lavi was quit beautiful
No, you prove to me a dirigible cannot fly at supersonic speeds? Indeed how do you know no dirigible ever achieved supersonic speeds? Everybody knows the dirigible is a shape of extraordinary dynamic efficiency and fabric skin is better than stressed skin metal or composites, therefore it is my opinion that a dirigible broke the sound barrier but a conspiracy of silence has surrounded the event ever since.
You can accelerate any thing to Mach 1, Mach 2 or more however in aircraft design cost effectiviness is the most important factor deciding an aircraft program`s future.
I do not know how feasible is to built one that flies supersonic and if we could still call it a dirigible it`s important always to see what is technically possible under the laws of known physics
I think an airship or dirigible must be expensive and unpractical to fly at high speed, the common jet offers too many advantages in price materials and operating costs that simply dirigibles have not become the main technological spear head in aviation.
There has been attemps to fly aircraft that flap their wings, aircraft that have air filled wings but they are either experimental or have not reach the technological level where they are practical enough to call them easy to build and operate.
The example is V/STOL there has been many aircraft that had the ability of V/STOL but few have succeed in terms of cost effectiness.
See for example even relatively conventional aircraft have not been built under economical considerations such as the IAI Lavi, this was a quit beautiful aircraft at least to my taste, however financial pressures kill the project.
This was another beautiful aircraft that never made it
When i look the Ar-234 i feel i am seeing the blue print for modern jet airliners
Here we see the influence the Ar-234 had on the Il-28
here the basic layout seen in several modern jet aircraft
and this looks like a baby B-52
Love this gernman WWII jet bomber has so smooth lines and was so revolutionary
I feel what looks good is good 😀 i love this bomber
this beauty?
:p
I like also the Dewotaine D-520 it looked like a MiG-3, long time ago i watched a program that stated that the Fibonacci Golden ratio is the basic proportion number that makes us Humans enjoy beauty closer to that we find any thing beautiful.
I do not know how much we can apply that to aircraft but perhaps has someting to do in what we call beautiful. 😀
I like the Me-109 a little bit more than the D-520 due to the very short tail the later has
The He-110 also looks cool
sourcehttp://www.luftwaffepics.com/lme1094.htm
However i love the Ju-388 a lot
The Ar-234 are also great
Sign In
I love the Ar-234