Is aesthetics important? (Kaan fighter)

[yeetmahboi]

F-32, F-18 , F-85 seem to be either slow or sluggish

F-32 could outmanoeuvre F-35 IIRC. Continuing the extreme highw T/W of the Harrier lineage.

 

[Ronny]

F-32 could outmanoeuvre F-35 IIRC. Continuing the extreme highw T/W of the Harrier lineage.

I find that hard to believe, F-32 is even thicker and draggier than F-35, at least in term of cross sectional area. It would be far worse in a sustain turn

 

[Arjen]

I find that hard to believe, F-32 is even thicker and draggier than F-35, at least in term of cross sectional area. It would be far worse in a sustain turn

Eyeballing an aircraft to determine its aerodynamic characteristics is bad form.

 

[Big_Zukini]

A post on aesthetics by Nir Kahn, his bio reads:

Nir Kahn is the Director of Design for Plasan and has been responsible for vehicle design in the company for over 15 years, including the design of the Navistar MaxxPro MRAP, Oshkosh M-ATV, and the Plasan SandCat.

Plasan is a small Israeli company that entered the defense business as a developer of ceramic based armor, and later evolved to make armored vehicles. Their designs do include vehicles that look more "friendly" and "reassuring", something a police or peacekeepers' vehicle should be, and some more aggressive, as frontline vehicles should be.
He explains why it's important to blend aesthetics with function, and that their customers do specify aesthetic requirements.
I know it's armored vehicles and not aircraft, and some of the circumstances described don't apply here, but generally I think the idea still applies.

The Aesthetics of Armoured Vehicles

When the first armoured tanks were being developed to face each other across muddy fields 100 years ago, little consideration was given to how they would look. Understandably, their styling was hardly a priority.

www.linkedin.com

 

[Foo Fighter]

It is impossible to actually get a non partisan idea of the flight qualities of the xf-32 or compare it with the xf-35.

All I have seen are folk gushing about aesthetics and a little about the stovl failures of the xf-32 v the xf-35.

If anyone knows where to find a simple independant but factual review, I am all ears.

 

[had]

A post on aesthetics by Nir Kahn, his bio reads:

Plasan is a small Israeli company that entered the defense business as a developer of ceramic based armor, and later evolved to make armored vehicles. Their designs do include vehicles that look more "friendly" and "reassuring", something a police or peacekeepers' vehicle should be, and some more aggressive, as frontline vehicles should be.
He explains why it's important to blend aesthetics with function, and that their customers do specify aesthetic requirements.
I know it's armored vehicles and not aircraft, and some of the circumstances described don't apply here, but generally I think the idea still applies.

The Aesthetics of Armoured Vehicles

When the first armoured tanks were being developed to face each other across muddy fields 100 years ago, little consideration was given to how they would look. Understandably, their styling was hardly a priority.

www.linkedin.com

I would put designs features, to be friendly or aggressive, in a different category. Especially having “aggressive” designs is pretty much part of the mindfuckery in war, in my opinion.
I would see it as the visual part of the longstanding attempts to induce fear reactions to your enemy. Like the Jericho Trumpet in WWII (connection to the main topic) or the Maori Haka (as a traditional approach).

 

[Shaman Harris]

It is fine. Like a less normie version of F-22

 

[edwest4]

Aesthetics matter. Designs have to be approved by the military. Anything that is visually pleasing will be noticed regardless of an understanding or lack thereof of aesthetics.

That said, the most important factors in establishing a requirement is a guarantee of speed, range and bomb load, or similar for reconnaissance and transport aircraft. Attack aircraft have to have good survivability against opponent aircraft. Better speed, maneuverability and so on.

But since human beings are in charge of choosing between similar, competing designs, the one with better aesthetics will have that working in its favor.

 

[VTOLicious]

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

Kaan is actually the perfect example of how an aesthetically pleasing preliminary design (initial CGI, mock-up) transformed into a final design, apparently based on engineering principles and customer requirements (aerodynamics, RCS, etc.)...

 

[shin_getter]

You people are thinking this wrong, the CORRECT result is to design an aircraft that is so ugly that it is impossible to stare at it without mental damage: thus Low Observable requirement gets fulfilled.

If attack on the observer is too difficult, merely being completely forgettable is also a good idea.

Unless the aircraft is intended to be a decoy and troll people instead~