Todos
← Back to Squawk list
Beauty or Beast? Up Close and Personal With the 787.
Let's ignore the 787's well-publicized technical troubles for a moment, and have a look at the plane from a purely aesthetic point of view. Is it a beauty, a beast, or somewhere in between? Photos by the author... (www.askthepilot.com) Más...Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
I think the 787 is a beauty. As far as features created 60 years ago and still work, NASA tried to design a prop for the Wright flyer that would be more efficient. They concluded that the Wright Brothers design could not be made better with today's tech.
I agree the Comet (or Nimrod) is the first thing I think of when I see the B787
add B-757 to that list.
My pick for best looking passenger jet is the BOAC Cunard liveried, Vickers Super VC10.Also the quietest, by far, of the pre-1970s commercial jets.
I don't know about the best-looking since that would exclude Concorde. But for subsonic aircraft, I'll agree. The Standard VC10 looks good, but Super VC-10 is/was especially sleek and sexy. I just wish that I had appreciated the roundtrip KJFK-EGPK flights in my childhood to visit grandparents in Scotland. It's such a shame that truly wondrous things are lost on youth. But memories certainly came flooding back when I walked through the aircraft at Duxford a few years ago! And while waiting for a bus or train at the St. Andrews station, I've seen them in military colors as they performed touch-and-goes at RAF Leuchars.
I'd also like to add the MD-80 family of aircraft to the list of beauties. I guess I like rear-mounted engines. Once again, the original (DC-9) looked fine, better than the Caravelle or BAC-111. But it was only when the fuselage was stretched into the DC-9-80 that it finally had the perfect shape. Despite their age they all look like they want to go flying, even when they're sitting still. At least I get to appreciate their beauty and enjoy their remaining years of service. The replacement B737's and baby Buses may have more bells and whistles for passengers with short attention spans, but they can't hold a candle to the "Super 80" when it comes to looks.
I'd also like to add the MD-80 family of aircraft to the list of beauties. I guess I like rear-mounted engines. Once again, the original (DC-9) looked fine, better than the Caravelle or BAC-111. But it was only when the fuselage was stretched into the DC-9-80 that it finally had the perfect shape. Despite their age they all look like they want to go flying, even when they're sitting still. At least I get to appreciate their beauty and enjoy their remaining years of service. The replacement B737's and baby Buses may have more bells and whistles for passengers with short attention spans, but they can't hold a candle to the "Super 80" when it comes to looks.
The DC-9s and MD-80s are also my favorites for your stated reasons; the long, unclutteed fuselage and the thin, uncluttered wings does it for me! I continue to be thrilled by the sight a Super-80 in the take-off climb.
Too, these 9s, 80s, and 90s will have a second-tier career and perhaps a "third-world" life, too.
Too, these 9s, 80s, and 90s will have a second-tier career and perhaps a "third-world" life, too.
I agree there are tons of great, very cool aircraft throughout history! I think that, even those aircraft that come across as more practical than sleek, are great in their own way. But, the Shorts might be one I would exclude from the "attractive" list!
Similarly, the wings of the B2 stealth bomber look a lot like the Comet's wings.