Are aircraft designed and if so, which is the best looking one?

[ivanotter]

Are military aircraft actually designed or do they just look the way they do because of the engineering department's requirements?

Is it by chance the F-4 and F-16 are "good looking"?

 

[tyrodtom]

I was in the USAF when they first transitioned to the F4, I don't ever recall anyone remarking how beautiful they were.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Are military aircraft actually designed or do they just look the way they do because of the engineering department's requirements?

Is it by chance the F-4 and F-16 are "good looking"?

Designed for function - nothing less, nothing more.

 

[tyrodtom]

The designers of the A-10 definitely weren't too concerned about beauty.
I guess you could say cars are designed, aircraft are engineered.

 

[ivanotter]

My opinion as well. They just came to look the way because of engineering.

A10 is surely functional, but not in the "designed" category.

That said, I still the the X-32 is a joke design wise. It is an embarrassment and could be the reason for losing out (although F-35 is not exactly hot in the desing department either).

Will it change with the public getting more and more involved in these projects? Will the next generation a/c be designed to attract "votes" ?

 

[RabidAlien]

If we start designing our fighter aircraft to be appealing to the public, then the men and women who work with them are in for a very rough time. Engineer the military aircraft to do their jobs. Leave the streamlining and "vote" catching for Lear and Cessna.

 

[drgondog]

My opinion as well. They just came to look the way because of engineering.

A10 is surely functional, but not in the "designed" category.

That said, I still the the X-32 is a joke design wise. It is an embarrassment and could be the reason for losing out (although F-35 is not exactly hot in the desing department either).

Will it change with the public getting more and more involved in these projects? Will the next generation a/c be designed to attract "votes" ?

The 'public' is not a factor.

The mission specified by the contractor drives the design. The shape is defined by subsets (like 'Stealth' or 'Supersonic' or 'Heavy lift/Short field' or 'capacity = 100 fully loaded troopers or 2 M1A1 tanks or 2 AH-1 Cobras') of the Mission and Technical Specs.

The required aerodynamic and stability derivatives further define the external envelope,

 

[ivanotter]

Shame, really.

So, conclusion: It would be time to compliment the team behind the

F-16
F-4
F/A 18 (More so the Super Hornet)
...and of course Mitchell and his Spitfire

and "let the tires down" of the people behind
X-32 (OMG)

But beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

I can see it creeping in, though. The people making decisions are also human after all. If I were on the selection board and they came in with the X-32, I would still be laughing and maybe forget some of the finer details. It does detract if it is "ugly" (or a downright joke).