Is aesthetics important? (Kaan fighter)

[0cu0]

According to the "admin", the Kaan Forum was not the right place for it. Perhaps this one is okay.

I mean, everyone has a different emphasis when it comes to aircraft and why they are fascinating. I have definitely a fable for aircraft-astetics and think it is important as well.
So which changes would you like to see on the Kaan fighter? (Besides having a more original design)

Me, besides painting the Kaan fighter all in dark grey (F-35 color) and getting rid of the awful logo on it, I would love to see these changes to make it more eye pleasing

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

In a word - no. Your subjective opinion of the aesthetics is irrelevant to literally everyone including, but not limited to, the team designing and building it.

 

[0cu0]

It is your forum – no problem.

But I disagree. Aesthetics are partial subjective ,d’accord, but there are norms and conventions which are general valid to be eye pleasing. (Different cultural backgrounds could have different norms/conventions, though). Design Awards wouldn’t make any sense otherwise.

In regards of aircraft. Isn’t it curious that planes like the SU-57 and F-22 are both quite beautiful (my humble opinion of course) and also aerodynamically well designed. Couldn’t there be almost a connection?

And if it is a product, it’s always helpful to sell something eye pleasing. No?

 

[Scott Kenny]

Visually interesting designs tend to be terrible in terms of RCS.

Cases in point, all the wacky hyper-experimental stuff that comes out of the Ace Combat games.

X-02 Wyvern:

https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/acecombat/images/9/90/X-02S_Prepares_for_Aerial_Refueling.png

Those forward-swept wings fold forward and the canards and ruddervators fold flat as the plane increases speed. (Must admit, this is my favorite to fly!)

ADF-01 Falken

https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/acecombat/images/d/dd/ADF-01_AC7_Flyby.png

Uses a virtual cockpit, and has a big nasty chemical laser system.

CFA-44 Nosferatu

https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/acecombat/images/6/6b/CFA-44_AC7_Flyby_3.jpg

Carrier-based high-maneuverability fighter (engine exhausts have the same flaps as the X-31). Has some stealth, but the canard gap causes some issues. Also has some scary-advanced EW pods, which obviously eliminate any stealth advantages.


UAV-45 Malgebolg

https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/acecombat/images/7/70/UAV-45_Flyby.jpg

This is like a MALI, it's a UAV carried in the CFA-44's weapons bays, weaponry is limited to a single, 3-barrel rotary cannon.

ASF-X Shinden II

https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/acecombat/images/6/60/ASF-X_AC7_Flyby.jpg

A twin-engined aircraft, supposedly stealthy and with 3 variants like the F-35 series.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

F-4 Phantom, A-7 Corsair II, A-10 Thunderbolt II ... great planes designs, all ugly.

Discussing Kaan physical features from a technical perspective is one thing. Discussing how to change its external appearance to make it more "aesthetically pleasing" just seems like a really pointless discussion without any objective standard to measure against. Certainly one to move to The Bar rather than cluttering the main Kaan topic.

 

[publiusr]

If stealth were made obsolete by new sensor technology, then pure aerodynamic designs would return--and those would likely look better than angular, sawtooth designs.

 

[Foo Fighter]

F-4 Phantom, A-7 Corsair II, A-10 Thunderbolt II ... great planes designs, all ugly.

Discussing Kaan physical features from a technical perspective is one thing. Discussing how to change its external appearance to make it more "aesthetically pleasing" just seems like a really pointless discussion without any objective standard to measure against. Certainly one to move to The Bar rather than cluttering the main Kaan topic.

Perhaps if the poster went to an artisitc forum like Artstation (https://www.artstation.com/?sort_by=community&dimension=all) for example, the views may be more to his liking and interest.

Personally speaking, talk of flight sims and aesthetics belongs in a dedicated thread and a relevent forum.

 

[0cu0]

I like being at the point of intersection between engineering and shaping/designing (operational hazard being an architect, I guess), so an artforum wouldn't cut it for me. I have too much of interests in the technical part.

The point I’m trying to grasp is actually, is there a natural gravitation towards an eye pleasing form if you design something like an aircraft (perhaps because of air resistance and/or LO technology)
My starting point of thinking was the case of Russia. Not really a country known for outstanding design but in the aviation realm, it produces quite a few good looking airplanes (Su-57, Tu-160, the Flankers main principle). By chance? (leaving out the industrial espionage part)
It’s the functionality, which is obviously the driving force behind the development of an aircraft but in real life, there are always functionality features working against each other. Especially true for multirole fighters (being small and versatile).

As an example, the height of the Kaan cockpit. It would make sense to be that high if it is a naval variant landing on a carrier, I guess. It isn’t and in the HMD age makes it even less sense. On the other hand, it increases the radar cross section.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

As an example, the height of the Kaan cockpit. It would make sense to be that high if it is a naval variant landing on a carrier, I guess. It isn’t and in the HMD age makes it even less sense. On the other hand, it increases the radar cross section.

You know this how?

 

[0cu0]

If stealth were made obsolete by new sensor technology, then pure aerodynamic designs would return--and those would likely look better than angular, sawtooth designs.

I think stealth introduced the need to cover things up, to almost everting. Not a bad thing per se, in my opinion.

I’m also not in the anti F-35 camp. It looks a bit thick but not really ugly/fat. I think the brits describe it with “battle penguin” quite well.

 

[Justo Miranda]

During my time as a modeler I learned to appreciate the aerodynamic beauty of airplanes and automobiles, but as I increased my knowledge of airplane design I began to understand that aerodynamics is the resource of designers who do not have powerful enough engines, I believe that over time power will prevail over conventional design and designers will be able to seriously consider the VTOL option.

 

[0cu0]

You know this how?

I would think, the more compact something is, the better it is in this regard.
The rounded glass of the cockpit is something you have to tackle separately as well, Different coating, different technology needed.

 

[Bounce]

The only reason the Kaan looks goofy is due to the intakes being so far forward like the YF-22 had, push them back and I think it would look better.

Here I made a simple edit, slightly behind the cockpit line now.

 

[0cu0]

During my time as a modeler I learned to appreciate the aerodynamic beauty of airplanes and automobiles, but as I increased my knowledge of airplane design I began to understand that aerodynamics is the resource of designers who do not have powerful enough engines, I believe that over time power will prevail over conventional design and designers will be able to seriously consider the VTOL option.

Makes sense, but is the engine power not always the bottle neck?
Meaning, if you have more power on hand you would immediately put more things on it/make it bigger, wouldn’t you?

 

[Justo Miranda]

I would think, the more compact something is, the better it is in this regard.
The rounded glass of the cockpit is something you have to tackle separately as well, Different coating, different technology needed.

Hi

 

[0cu0]

The only reason the Kaan looks goofy is due to the intakes being so far forward like the YF-22 had, push them back and I think it would look better.

Here I made a simple edit, slightly behind the cockpit line now.

I agree fully

 

[Justo Miranda]

Makes sense, but is the engine power not always the bottle neck?
Meaning, if you have more power on hand you would immediately put more things on it/make it bigger, wouldn’t you?

The science of materials to make them lighter and stronger and electronics to make smaller but more powerful equipment is also advancing.

 

[_Del_]

In a word - no. Your subjective opinion of the aesthetics is irrelevant to literally everyone including, but not limited to, the team designing and building it.

The whole thing is sort of silly. Hopefully even the OP will concede that.

The only concession one has to make though is how many times have I heard or even said "Looks right, flies right" over the years (including among people building and designing things).

 

[flateric]

There were plenty of 'cool looking' aircraft that flew/performed like shit

 

[Justo Miranda]

Sometimes intuition can achieve strange results, no one in 1939 could imagine that the Spitfire wing could have excellent transonic behavior.

Among test pilots, saying that a plane "sounds bad" despite the opinions of technicians can save their lives.

The Spitfires that nearly broke the sound barrier

A handful of British Spitfire pilots cheated death in high-speed dives that helped pave the way towards supersonic flight. Stephen Dowling investigates.

www.bbc.com

 

[Nuclear Onion]

The point I’m trying to grasp is actually, is there a natural gravitation towards an eye pleasing form if you design something like an aircraft (perhaps because of air resistance and/or LO technology)

Well one could make a case that some aircraft have smoother curves to help with aerodynamics, like the smoother transitions helping prevent flow seperation and vortices forming, and area ruling for transonic aircraft. On the other side of the spectrum, you have the F-4 which didn't really care about what the air was doing. I'm not super knowledgeable in the field though.

 

[Kiltonge]

F-4 Phantom, A-7 Corsair II, A-10 Thunderbolt II ... great planes designs, all ugly.

They might be 'ugly' or 'ungainly' but they have cohesive mould lines and their designs can all be explained rationally. The A-7 has an intake ahead of the nose wheel to avoid ingesting catapult steam, the A-10 has its engines mounted high to blank the IR signature etc etc

Kaan, however, looks disproportionate and awkward for no discernable functional reason. It might be facetious to say but it's almost like a knock-off design by a team that doesn't quite understand why an F-22 is shaped so

I don't see why its aesthetics should be off-limits when Iranian 'prototypes' are mercilessly mocked for the same reason.

 

[Justo Miranda]

They might be 'ugly' or 'ungainly' but they have cohesive mould lines and their designs can all be explained rationally. The A-7 has an intake ahead of the nose wheel to avoid ingesting catapult steam, the A-10 has its engines mounted high to blank the IR signature etc etc

Kaan, however, looks disproportionate and awkward for no discernable functional reason. It might be facetious to say but it's almost like a knock-off design by a team that doesn't quite understand why an F-22 is shaped so

I don't see why its aesthetics should be off-limits when Iranian 'prototypes' are mercilessly mocked for the same reason.

I've always wondered why Hawker designers decided to install the Typhoon's radiator under the propeller hub instead of installing them on the wing roots as in the prototype or in the Fairey Firefly.

 

[publiusr]

What would be an example of something painfully ugly that handled well--outside of F4 and propeller craft?

 

[Justo Miranda]

What would be an example of something painfully ugly that handled well--outside of F4 and propeller craft?

Hi

 

[Justo Miranda]

Post-2

 

[Kat Tsun]

F-4 Phantom, A-7 Corsair II, A-10 Thunderbolt II ... great planes designs, all ugly.

Discussing Kaan physical features from a technical perspective is one thing. Discussing how to change its external appearance to make it more "aesthetically pleasing" just seems like a really pointless discussion without any objective standard to measure against. Certainly one to move to The Bar rather than cluttering the main Kaan topic.

I think there are definitely objective aesthetic measurements, tbf. They may just be abstract rules rather than hard and fast things.

The golden ratio comes to mind. The rule of thirds in photography. Basic color theory. The human brain is a system that turns shapes and colors into beauty, so there are probably baseline standards that matter. Militaries are also run by humans, who can be taken by fashion, and thus engineers may be incentivized to make things aesthetically pleasing.

The most well known of these is the XM8 rifle. Before it was trialed for service, and before the funding for adoption got redirected to Operation Enduring Freedom, it looked very "ugly". Blocky and not particularly aesthetically pleasing. Because it was designed by weapons engineers. Very much what it was: a G36C with a CCO on top. Later, it was redesigned by an automobile firm (at least as I understand) to be "swoopier" to look "futuristic".

I don't think this plays into aircraft, at least in any aerodynamic sense, but it certainly applies to small arms and tactical trucks.

Hi

Sorry Sea Vixen is beautiful.

The real ugly duckling award goes to that patent drawing of the staggerwing F-15.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I mean, Marcel Dassault himself said that if a plane looked good, it would fly good. And I find the Flanker series to be the most aesthetically pleasing of all 4th gen fighters. For the 5th gen aircraft, the overall aesthetics win goes to the YF23, 2nd place to the J-20, and 3rd place to the Su57.

As similar in gross shaping as the YF23 and SU57 are, I find that the Felon's engines stay too much below the "beltline" of the shape, while the YF23's engines are above the beltline. So the Felon looks "fat" while the YF23 looks "broad-shouldered"

 

[0cu0]

Kaan, however, looks disproportionate and awkward for no discernable functional reason. It might be facetious to say but it's almost like a knock-off design by a team that doesn't quite understand why an F-22 is shaped so

It is probably like you said in regards of the design team of the Kaan. Taking some parts of different 5. Gen aircraft and merge them together.
In addition, I have the theory that they wanted to keep the cockpit form as close as possible to the F-35 cockpit (which they were building in the consortium) and the placement was then kind of given by the geometrics of it all. We will see if they can improve the proportions in the next stages.

 

[0cu0]

I mean, Marcel Dassault himself said that if a plane looked good, it would fly good.

I have almost the feeling that this kind of aesthetic approach is still embedded in the DNA of the Dassault firms engineering department.
I can literally hear someone say, “well, the Eurofighter will have the more powerful engines, so lets make the Rafale the better looking aircraft”

 

[Justo Miranda]

I think there are definitely objective aesthetic measurements, tbf. They may just be abstract rules rather than hard and fast things.

The golden ratio comes to mind. The rule of thirds in photography. Basic color theory. The human brain is a system that turns shapes and colors into beauty, so there are probably baseline standards that matter. Militaries are also run by humans, who can be taken by fashion, and thus engineers may be incentivized to make things aesthetically pleasing.

The most well known of these is the XM8 rifle. Before it was trialed for service, and before the funding for adoption got redirected to Operation Enduring Freedom, it looked very "ugly". Blocky and not particularly aesthetically pleasing. Because it was designed by weapons engineers. Very much what it was: a G36C with a CCO on top. Later, it was redesigned by an automobile firm (at least as I understand) to be "swoopier" to look "futuristic".

I don't think this plays into aircraft, at least in any aerodynamic sense, but it certainly applies to small arms and tactical trucks.

View attachment 756995



Sorry Sea Vixen is beautiful.

The real ugly duckling award goes to that patent drawing of the staggerwing F-15.

OK

 

[0cu0]

For the 5th gen aircraft, the overall aesthetics win goes to the YF23, 2nd place to the J-20, and 3rd place to the Su57.

I thought about why the J-20 was never in my top-list of most aesthetic 5. gen aircraft.
I’m aware, its design is much liked here in this forum but don’t you guys think the proportions are a little bit off? To long in the middle perhaps?(aesthetically, not criticizing functions)

 

[Scott Kenny]

I thought about why the J-20 was never in my top-list of most aesthetic 5. gen aircraft.
I’m aware, its design is much liked here in this forum but don’t you guys think the proportions are a little bit off? To long in the middle perhaps?(aesthetically, not criticizing functions)

Possibly. It's certainly lengthened because of the longer missiles in the bay.

 

[martinbayer]

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and we all have our very own personal aesthetic ideals. Heck, sometimes I almost get the impression that there are still some weird/demented people who find propeller airplanes pretty/attractive (shudder!!!), but hey, it's a free marketplace of ideas, and online mental help is readily available...

 

[Michel Van]

Marcel Dassault once say

For an aircraft to fly well, it must be beautiful

Dassault Mirage IIIC

 

[Scott Kenny]

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and we all have our very own personal aesthetic ideals. Heck, sometimes I almost get the impression that there are still some weird/demented people who find propeller airplanes pretty/attractive (shudder!!!), but hey, it's a free marketplace of ideas, and online mental help is readily available...

Some propeller planes are gorgeous. P-51D mustang, for example. I bet most Brits would argue that the Spitfire is also gorgeous, and I personally find the long-tail FW-190 very pretty. Less a fan of the Fw-190D, though.

Some are hideous.

 

[Nx4eu]

I mean, Marcel Dassault himself said that if a plane looked good, it would fly good. And I find the Flanker series to be the most aesthetically pleasing of all 4th gen fighters. For the 5th gen aircraft, the overall aesthetics win goes to the YF23, 2nd place to the J-20, and 3rd place to the Su57.

As similar in gross shaping as the YF23 and SU57 are, I find that the Felon's engines stay too much below the "beltline" of the shape, while the YF23's engines are above the beltline. So the Felon looks "fat" while the YF23 looks "broad-shouldered"

The YF-23 looks a bit too long though while on the ground while the SU-57 has good proportions overall. I also prefer the more streamlined transitions on the Su-57 than the bumpy ones on the YF-23. The Su-57 for me looks like a supercar but I get that from other angles it looks really wide and flat. Oh yeah, the slight downward angle the Su-57 sits on the ground is the cherry on top, I don't know why but it looks really good.