Aircraft aesthetics

[Dawes]

I recently ordered a 1/48 model kit of the SAAB Draken. It struck me that even though this aircraft had it's design origins in the 1950's it looks quite distinctive and modern even today. I would say that much of the same goes for the Viggen.

Did the Draken's head-on profile give it any advantage as far as radar detection?

 

[sunday]

I dare say that the engine intakes of the Draken are similar to those in the Republic F-105 or the Douglas F5D.

[Olof Larsson]

4 hours ago, Dawes said:

I recently ordered a 1/48 model kit of the SAAB Draken. It struck me that even though this aircraft had it's design origins in the 1950's it looks quite distinctive and modern even today. I would say that much of the same goes for the Viggen.

Did the Draken's head-on profile give it any advantage as far as radar detection?

 

None, that I have ever heard of. It had very low drag though. Unlike the Viggen, that early on had issues with supersonic speed, because of poor area ruling. They solved that issue by locking up all the responsible design managers in a hotel/retreat in a small town called Rimforsa, until they could agree on a solution. The result was the bulge in front of the tail fin, nicknamed "the Rimforsa bubble".

[Mighty_Zuk]

18 hours ago, Dawes said:

I recently ordered a 1/48 model kit of the SAAB Draken. It struck me that even though this aircraft had it's design origins in the 1950's it looks quite distinctive and modern even today. I would say that much of the same goes for the Viggen.

Did the Draken's head-on profile give it any advantage as far as radar detection?

To me it doesn't look that modern, but I do think the dorito configuration is here to stay, in one way or another.

[Stuart Galbraith]

13 hours ago, Olof Larsson said:

None, that I have ever heard of. It had very low drag though. Unlike the Viggen, that early on had issues with supersonic speed, because of poor area ruling. They solved that issue by locking up all the responsible design managers in a hotel/retreat in a small town called Rimforsa, until they could agree on a solution. The result was the bulge in front of the tail fin, nicknamed "the Rimforsa bubble".

I feel certain there was cocaine and strippers involved.

 

[Ivanhoe]

Leave Congress out of this.

 

[Ivanhoe]

p.s. thanks Olof for the Rimforsa tale! It further reinforces my belief in the "war room" concept for project management.

On aesthetics in general, a million years ago when I worked for McDD, in the context of post-WWII GenAv aircraft one of my colleagues asserted that "if it looks good, it probably flies good."

[Dawes]

Again, just on general appearance the Draken looks like it would be a quite structurally strong aircraft.

[sunday]

30 minutes ago, Ivanhoe said:

p.s. thanks Olof for the Rimforsa tale! It further reinforces my belief in the "war room" concept for project management.

On aesthetics in general, a million years ago when I worked for McDD, in the context of post-WWII GenAv aircraft one of my colleagues asserted that "if it looks good, it probably flies good."

Was that after the launch of the F-4? Because the Phantom is the classic counterexample to that statement.

[Dawes]

The Phantom looks cool, in the same way that the Cylon Raider from the original "Battlestar Galactica" looks cool.

[sunday]

24 minutes ago, Dawes said:

The Phantom looks cool, in the same way that the Cylon Raider from the original "Battlestar Galactica" looks cool.

Perhaps that shows that aircraft aesthetics is not timeless, i.e. people brought up seeing fighters with elliptical wings like the Spitfire or the P-47, or sleek and polished like the Mustang, did find the F4H a bit too much looking like a brick, or an upside-down plane.

[Ol Paint]

Unpopular opinion, but the I think the Draken may be decent-looking, but the square cut inlets and relationship to the nose make it look like they forgot about 5' of fuselage.  It's like they stuck the poor jet in the pencil sharpener a few too many times...  Not in the same aesthetic class as the contemporaneous B-58 Hustler or F-106.

Also, this thread is worthless without pictures. 

Oddly, it seems difficult to come by a picture of the F-106 and B-58 in formation, so I'll settle for each one escorting another aesthetically pleasing aircraft.

 

Doug

[Olof Larsson]

6 hours ago, Dawes said:

Again, just on general appearance the Draken looks like it would be a quite structurally strong aircraft.

If the legends are true, they were ridiculously strong. I've heard of a case of one aircraft that had been over-G'd, there the wingtips were straightend up, by having one group of airmen on each wing, bouncing up and down until the thing was strait again.

[urbanoid]

6 hours ago, sunday said:

Was that after the launch of the F-4? Because the Phantom is the classic counterexample to that statement.

[sunday]

14 minutes ago, urbanoid said:

Sorry, but the Phantom is Phugly. 😝

Not as much as those French abominations of the between wars period, I reckon.

Edited November 17, 2024 by sunday

[TrustMe]

The Phantom is an example of brute force over aerodynamics  

[sunday]

4 minutes ago, TrustMe said:

The Phantom is an example of brute force over aerodynamics  

Yes. Very much!

[Ivanhoe]

1 hour ago, urbanoid said:

I concur.

I did not realize I had stumbled into a den of Philistines. Y'all have strayed from the path of righteousness, and could very well end up becoming a pillar of salt.

Phantom II is like that fitness model gal; muscles, sweat sheen, and big poufy hair.

As for anyone asserting the Draken isn't beautiful, all I can say is go visit your optometrist pronto.

 

[sunday]

9 minutes ago, Ivanhoe said:

Phantom II is like that fitness model gal

On steroids, and in need of shaving, yes. 😄

[lucklucky]

A-5/ RA 5C Vigilante is also a 1950 design, only a little more than a decade after propeller aircraft

 

[Ol Paint]

9 hours ago, sunday said:

Perhaps that shows that aircraft aesthetics is not timeless, i.e. people brought up seeing fighters with elliptical wings like the Spitfire or the P-47, or sleek and polished like the Mustang, did find the F4H a bit too much looking like a brick, or an upside-down plane.

The Phantom was always a brutalist aircraft with form following function.  From the wingtip dihedral, anhedral tailplanes, and massive intakes, it fit right in with the muscle car era.

Ironically, I would've put the P-47 in the same category as the F-4 Phantom, when compared to the P-51 and Spitfire.  Particularly considering one P-47 put the "ground" in ground attack, flying 150mi back to base after CFIT:

Doug

 

 

Edited November 17, 2024 by Ol Paint
Added P-47.

[Renegade334]

20 hours ago, Ivanhoe said:

p.s. thanks Olof for the Rimforsa tale! It further reinforces my belief in the "war room" concept for project management.

O/T. Not the first time it was used to break a longstanding deadlock.

There was a rather long interregnum in the papal succession between 1268 and 1271 (today considered the longest-ever papal election) after the death of Pope Clement IV, and the people of Italy finally had enough of the cardinals-electors' dillydallying: the officials and inhabitants of Viterbo (where the election traditionally took place until it was moved to the Sistine Chapel) had the CEs sequestered within the Palace of the Popes of Viterbo and told them they would stay there inside that building, fed with only bread and water, until they finally chose a new Pope. The roof of the Palace was also removed (thus exposing everyone to the weather) as further incentive (officially under pretext of allowing the Holy Spirit to swoop in and give guidance to the cardinals). And lo and behold, habemus papam!

That's where the word conclave itself comes from: seclusion "with key" (cum clave).

It's radical, but it does work!

[Olof Larsson]

20 hours ago, lucklucky said:

A-5/ RA 5C Vigilante is also a 1950 design, only a little more than a decade after propeller aircraft

 

Development started 11 years after the US Navy retired its last biplane fighter. I wonder if any A-5 pilot, ever started his career flying biplanes.

[Stuart Galbraith]

20 hours ago, Ol Paint said:

The Phantom was always a brutalist aircraft with form following function.  From the wingtip dihedral, anhedral tailplanes, and massive intakes, it fit right in with the muscle car era.

Ironically, I would've put the P-47 in the same category as the F-4 Phantom, when compared to the P-51 and Spitfire.  Particularly considering one P-47 put the "ground" in ground attack, flying 150mi back to base after CFIT:

Doug

 

 

Did someone say Phantom?

https://x.com/thenewarea51/status/1858403287445159992?t=LqaQ3o3UgudzzI82IjczZg&s=19

[TrustMe]

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Did someone say Phantom?

https://x.com/thenewarea51/status/1858403287445159992?t=LqaQ3o3UgudzzI82IjczZg&s=19

Strictly speaking it's a F4-Phantom 2