PDA

View Full Version : Aesthetics in engineering



Clive Tester
2009-Dec-02, 03:29 PM
Referring to an earlier post, by Mugaliens (Any one here know how I can attach a link to another post on another thread?).

One of the most beautiful and inspiring things that I have ever witnessed was the AVRO Vulcan bomber, at air displays. Its grace was stunning, and the roar from its engines at full thrust shook the body. It was absolutely awe inspiring. I saw the Vulcan in flight in the 80s, and on what was probably one of the final displays in the early 90s. To this day the memories are still emotive and strong.

I thought at the time, that it could qualify purely as a work of art. I thought that it was ironic, that something so beautiful and so elegant was conceived out of mankindís propensity for warfare. But, maybe the Vulcan and the like prevented a big war; who knows.

Larry Jacks
2009-Dec-02, 03:40 PM
It me, one of the most beautiful airplanes ever built was the Supermarine Spitfire. That plane just looks right. It was also a deadly and vital weapon of war.

HenrikOlsen
2009-Dec-02, 03:42 PM
Upper right corner of the post has two links to the post as well as a report button.
The link on the number is probably best, as the "permalink" is done wrong and will fail in multi page threads when people with a different page length setting try to follow it.

Fazor
2009-Dec-02, 04:21 PM
The link on the number is probably best, as the "permalink" is done wrong and will fail in multi page threads when people with a different page length setting try to follow it.

Heh, thanks. I had that backwards, as the wording ("permalink") sounds more like it would work in any situation, and that post number might not. I guess an apology for all the Baut links I've posted in the past that don't work. ;)

SeanF
2009-Dec-02, 04:29 PM
Heh, thanks. I had that backwards, as the wording ("permalink") sounds more like it would work in any situation, and that post number might not. I guess an apology for all the Baut links I've posted in the past that don't work. ;)
The problem (IMHO) with using the post number link is that it returns a web page that includes only that one single post, and not the entire thread, so you don't get the post in context.

But, as Henrik said, the "permalink" doesn't work on multi-page threads if the user settings are different ("perma" means what, I wonder?).

Fazor
2009-Dec-02, 04:35 PM
Yeah, meaning any of the links I've posted recently are most likely wrong, unless in the first few, because I've changed my "posts per page" setting. Oh well. Back to engineering!

HenrikOlsen
2009-Dec-02, 07:14 PM
A trick that will always work (until the developers do even more to break links) is to take the permalink ...aesthetics-engineering.html#post1634661 (http://www.bautforum.com/off-topic-babbling/97537-aesthetics-engineering.html#post1634661) copy the bit after the # and insert it just before the ".html", replacing the page number if it's there, to get ...aesthetics-engineering-post1634661.html#post1634661 (http://www.bautforum.com/off-topic-babbling/97537-aesthetics-engineering-post1634661.html#post1634661) that will link you to the correct post and show the page it's on regardless of settings.

SeanF
2009-Dec-02, 07:23 PM
A trick that will always work (until the developers do even more to break links) is to take the permalink ...aesthetics-engineering.html#post1634661 (http://www.bautforum.com/off-topic-babbling/97537-aesthetics-engineering.html#post1634661) copy the bit after the # and insert it just before the ".html", replacing the page number if it's there, to get ...aesthetics-engineering-post1634661.html#post1634661 (http://www.bautforum.com/off-topic-babbling/97537-aesthetics-engineering-post1634661.html#post1634661) that will link you to the correct post and show the page it's on regardless of settings.
Good to know.

Note that if the page number's not there, as in your example, you also need to add a dash before the pasted "post..."

The Backroad Astronomer
2009-Dec-02, 07:24 PM
It me, one of the most beautiful airplanes ever built was the Supermarine Spitfire. That plane just looks right. It was also a deadly and vital weapon of war.
Completely argee with you.

Tuckerfan
2009-Dec-02, 08:18 PM
Buckminster Fuller once said words to the effect of, "I never set out to design anything that was beautiful, but I found that as soon as I'd got the engineering right, it was a beautiful design."

danscope
2009-Dec-02, 08:27 PM
Hi, I think his 3D Dymaxion Car is one of the most beautiful designs that
was ever built. It may yet find a place in the future.
I know that I should like to have one.

Best regards,
Dan

peteshimmon
2009-Dec-02, 08:55 PM
Look at electronics the past 60 years. From
thermionic valve radios with birds nest
wiring to early printed circuits to the latest
cards with surface mount and very small tracks.
Gets neater and neater.

And they all become trash:(

JohnD
2009-Dec-02, 09:19 PM
Any suspension bridge.
Any sailing boat. Well, almost any. A Mirror was pretty ugly. The bigger the better.
Any bicycle with full sized wheels - those folding jobbies are ghastly.
A Ford GT40.

IsaacKuo
2009-Dec-02, 10:08 PM
I find gyrocopters to be aesthetically pleasing. They're so minimalistic, even compared to bikes, and it's intuitively crazy that they work at all.

captain swoop
2009-Dec-02, 11:15 PM
Ducati 996 (http://motoprofi.com/motospecspictures/ducati/996_sps-2000.html) I have owned 2 of these a red one and a yellow one.
Ball Turret (http://liberatorcrew.com/15_Gunnery/05_ball.htm) on a B17 or Liberator
A2 Flying Jacket (http://www.c-king.jp/j-art/j_art_home.html)of which I own several
Buccaneer (http://www.aircraftinformation.info/Images/Buccaneer_02.jpg) I have been on the 'receiving' end of airsttrikes by these, luckily just on Exercise.
P47 (http://www.richard-seaman.com/Aircraft/AirShows/Midland2007/Highlights/P47Midland07.jpg) Makes a Spitfire look like a little toy
Jaguar D Type (http://i457.photobucket.com/albums/qq299/scdigest/Worldwide%20Auctioneers/Houston_1954JagDType.jpg)

captain swoop
2009-Dec-02, 11:38 PM
One to add
A4 Pacific (http://www.freefoto.com/images/809/26/809_26_5256---LNER-class-A4-4-6-2-pacific-steam-locomotive-60007-Sir-Nigel-Gre_web.jpg) 26 of them built. This is Sir Nigel Gresley, it's 'ours' on the NYMR, this picture is outside our Engine Works. Mallard the world speed record holder for a steam loco is an A4.

KaiYeves
2009-Dec-02, 11:57 PM
I think the Space Shuttle is very beautiful. Sometimes I get flack for saying this, but I really do.

swampyankee
2009-Dec-03, 01:20 AM
It's a well know fact that ugly aircraft never fly very well. Mary Shafer (http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=UTF-8&fr=moz35&rs=0&p=mary+shafer+nasa+dryden&rs=0&fr2=rs-top) has an explanation here (http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geuyZfChdLEFgAge5XNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTByYWkyZ2E wBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDNwRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkAw--/SIG=11mtqoaif/EXP=1259887583/**http%3a//www.sics.se/~pd/Lift.demons). Anyhow, the forces involved in flight don't like ugly stuff.

Middenrat
2009-Dec-03, 01:45 AM
Funny the paradigms are all obsolete, except the Ducati and that's not 'beautiful' in classical aesthetics: too many add-on bits, tubes hanging off, spurious radiators (all for emissions regs most likely - compromising the engineering *tut*)
All I can add is The Eiffel Tower and a Manx Norton.

Torsten
2009-Dec-03, 02:31 AM
Concrete arch dams set in rocky canyons look pleasing to me.

A highway built through rugged terrain that manages to incorporate broad sweeping curves and gentle grades, taking advantage of natural terraces where available, while balancing minimal cuts and fills.

F104 Starfighter. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lockheed_F-104_Starfighter.jpg)

Cessna 185 Floatplane (http://s259.photobucket.com/albums/hh315/TKphotofolder/BAUT/fcluattaborlake1.jpg)

Middenrat
2009-Dec-03, 03:44 AM
could look at that Cessna all day ...

mugaliens
2009-Dec-03, 07:24 AM
Referring to an earlier post, by Mugaliens (Any one here know how I can attach a link to another post on another thread?).

One of the most beautiful and inspiring things that I have ever witnessed was the AVRO Vulcan bomber, at air displays. Its grace was stunning, and the roar from its engines at full thrust shook the body. It was absolutely awe inspiring. I saw the Vulcan in flight in the 80s, and on what was probably one of the final displays in the early 90s. To this day the memories are still emotive and strong.

I've seen many different aircraft both on display and in flight from many different countries, but the one aircraft I've never seen in flight is the A.V. Roe and Company Vulcan Bomber (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AV_Roe_Bulls_Eye.jpg).

No, wait... That was merely a predecessor...

Ok - here we go (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Avro_Vulcan_Bomber_RAF.JPEG)!

Beautiful aircraft! Particularly in what I call it's "tiger camoflague" pattern.

Let's take a look at it's specs...

Hefty for a fighter, but not so much for a bomber. High mach, with a decent cruise. Limited range, pretty high ceiling, but very low T/W. Carried just one nuke, or 21,000 lbs of bombs.

:)

At least one person here knows why I'm grinning...


I thought at the time, that it could qualify purely as a work of art. I thought that it was ironic, that something so beautiful and so elegant was conceived out of mankindís propensity for warfare. But, maybe the Vulcan and the like prevented a big war; who knows.

I think a lot of fighters have done just that. The Douglas A-1 Skyraider was one ugly flying machine, but it got the job done six ways to Sunday. Even so, it wasn't nearly as much of a deterrant as an F-4 streaking overhead at 650 kts.

I'm wondering if someone else might not have had the same thoughts after 'Nam and thus the "sexy jet" era was born, from Fr-14s, 15's, 16's, 18's, and Bones - all "sexy jets," and apparently things settled down around the world, at least with respect to picking fights in the aerial combat arena.

swampyankee
2009-Dec-03, 11:05 AM
The Skyraider wasn't ugly; it was a functional design with no extraneous bits. For ugly aircraft, check out this (http://home.earthlink.net/~ralphcooper/barling1.jpg).

Larry Jacks
2009-Dec-03, 02:28 PM
It's a well know fact that ugly aircraft never fly very well. Mary Shafer has an explanation here. Anyhow, the forces involved in flight don't like ugly stuff.

Over the years, we've developed an asthetic sense about aircraft and how they're supposed to look. The old saying, "If it looks right, it'll fly right" was generally accurate. The "looks right" portion was based on things like the relative size and placement of wings and control surfaces which have major implications in the plane's flying characteristics.

However, with modern fly-by-wire technology, the saying isn't really true any more. Many modern military aircraft are dynamically unstable and would be unflyable without fly-by-wire technology. This allows designers to optimize the design for various performance factors like maneuverability or stealth without having to worry so much about handling characteristics. Even decidely ugly planes like the now retired F-117A can have good flying characterists.

swampyankee
2009-Dec-03, 05:10 PM
But the ugly ones still confuse the lift demons (http://www.messybeast.com/dragonqueen/liftdemon.htm), so some of them cause drag. Put a big enough engine on a brick and you can make it fly; put enough bits in its dfcs and the pilot may actually enjoy it.

Larry Jacks
2009-Dec-03, 05:40 PM
Sometimes, a very ugly airplane flies quite well. I doubt many people would argue that the Transavia Airtruck is a pretty plane but it is very functional. The plane is functional and the layout, while very unusual, was designed for efficient spread of crop-dusting materials.

Transavia Airtruck video on YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8RAMzwWWYs).
Transavia Airtruck still photo (http://outbackaviation.com.au/photos/show.php?Auto=49).

Now, this Caproni ducted fan design (http://1000aircraftphotos.com/Contributions/McDonell/4389.jpg) is just hideous. So was the Tacit Blue (http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=353).

Swift
2009-Dec-03, 05:55 PM
I personally find steam locomotives (http://www.frisco1522.org/3qtr.jpg) very aesthetically pleasing. And in some cases, there were deliberate efforts to design the aesthetics of them (http://www.steamlocomotive.com/bomuseum/co490.jpg).

captain swoop
2009-Dec-03, 07:27 PM
Limited range.

In service it was designed to take off with limited fuel weight to allow for a bigger payload. Once on the way to the target it would refuel to give it a full range. Two Vulcans flew from the UK to the Falklands to bomb the runway at Port Stanley, they refuelled on the way and it holds the record for the longest operational sortie.

You comment on the cailing. It was designed to fly high and fast into Russia along with it's stablemates the Victor and the Valiant. After the advent of SAMS with a high ceiling they were switched to 'under the radar' mission profiles. Valiants were retired and the Victor was converted to a Tanker.

Thinking about it now I should have included the Victor (http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/uk/bomber/victor.jpg) in my list above, It's like a big Buccaneer, Both are strict 'Area Rule' designs.

captain swoop
2009-Dec-03, 07:30 PM
Funny the paradigms are all obsolete, except the Ducati and that's not 'beautiful' in classical aesthetics: too many add-on bits, tubes hanging off, spurious radiators (all for emissions regs most likely - compromising the engineering *tut*)
All I can add is The Eiffel Tower and a Manx Norton.

Of course it's Beautiful. It's the Fararri of the Motorbike world. Of all the bikes I have owned (must be 20 or 30) over the years it's the one that is closest to a racer. It's handling and performance has no compramise at all, it could go straight onto the track. Not very comfy if you have to do more than 30 or so miles unless you can keep the speed up above 70 or so though.

captain swoop
2009-Dec-03, 07:32 PM
I personally find steam locomotives (http://www.frisco1522.org/3qtr.jpg) very aesthetically pleasing. And in some cases, there were deliberate efforts to design the aesthetics of them (http://www.steamlocomotive.com/bomuseum/co490.jpg).

Mallard and it's sister A4s were the first locomotives developed in a Wind Tunnel, their streamlining wasn't just for looks. In the UK they were also the only class of streamliners that weren't rebuilt later with conventional boiler cladding and footplates (Coronations on the LMS and West Countries/ Battle of Britains on the SOuthern)

Swift
2009-Dec-03, 08:53 PM
Mallard and it's sister A4s were the first locomotives developed in a Wind Tunnel, their streamlining wasn't just for looks. In the UK they were also the only class of streamliners that weren't rebuilt later with conventional boiler cladding and footplates (Coronations on the LMS and West Countries/ Battle of Britains on the SOuthern)
Interesting.

As far as I know, most (close to all) American streamliners were just for looks. There was a period that every big railroad's big name passenger train was of such a design. As you said, many of these in the States were rebuilt later into conventional designs, or just retired.

peteshimmon
2009-Dec-03, 08:55 PM
I understand the streamlined panels on the
West Country/Battle of Britain class
locomotives were purely to allow ease of
cleaning in special cleaning sheds. The
Southern Railway attracted many press
photographers.

captain swoop
2009-Dec-03, 10:55 PM
Interesting.

As far as I know, most (close to all) American streamliners were just for looks. There was a period that every big railroad's big name passenger train was of such a design. As you said, many of these in the States were rebuilt later into conventional designs, or just retired.

Well, Mallard isn't the record holder for nothing:)

A4s were very highly strung though, they need a lot of driving.

HenrikOlsen
2009-Dec-03, 10:57 PM
It's a well know fact that ugly aircraft never fly very well. Mary Shafer (http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=UTF-8&fr=moz35&rs=0&p=mary+shafer+nasa+dryden&rs=0&fr2=rs-top) has an explanation here (http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geuyZfChdLEFgAge5XNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTByYWkyZ2E wBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDNwRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkAw--/SIG=11mtqoaif/EXP=1259887583/**http%3a//www.sics.se/~pd/Lift.demons). Anyhow, the forces involved in flight don't like ugly stuff.
Strange how people keep calling the A10A Warthog ugly then. It's my impression it flies quite well.

captain swoop
2009-Dec-03, 10:58 PM
I understand the streamlined panels on the
West Country/Battle of Britain class
locomotives were purely to allow ease of
cleaning in special cleaning sheds. The
Southern Railway attracted many press
photographers.


They could be put through the Carriage washing plant also the design was supposed to help clear smoke and it looked 'Modern' on the front of the prestige 'Boat Trains' to Paris.
Bulleid was very much a 'form follows function' man. Look at his Q1 0-6-0 for the ultimate 'minimal' design.

We have a 'Rebuilt' West Country ('Hartland) up on the NYMR.
There is talk of re applying the streamlining like they are doing to one of the surviving LMS Coronations.

RAF_Blackace
2009-Dec-04, 12:56 AM
P51 Mustang. The aircraft that really won the war. I go to The warbirds display at Duxford in the UK. These aircraft always steal the show. The howl from the cowling must be heard as she dives at full throttle. Best British aircraft ever built by far.

danscope
2009-Dec-04, 02:09 AM
Good. Some one else loves the P - 51 ! Must be the twin pretty sister of the Spitfire !

Dan

mike alexander
2009-Dec-04, 02:10 AM
Swift mentioned steam locomotives. I well remember having meals in my uncle's house in East Cleveland and watching the big steam locomotives go chugging along outside the window on the viaduct at the end of Savannah Avenue.

Tuckerfan
2009-Dec-04, 05:15 AM
Raymond Loewy's streamlined locomotive design. (http://www.raymondloewy.org/gallery/loc_loewy_ss1.html) Loewy claimed that he was trying to improve the performance of the loco by streamlining it.

mugaliens
2009-Dec-04, 07:11 AM
Strange how people keep calling the A10A Warthog ugly then. It's my impression it flies quite well.

It doesn't dance like the tweet or a falcon, but yes, it's fairly maneuverable.

captain swoop
2009-Dec-04, 11:02 AM
P51 Mustang. The aircraft that really won the war. I go to The warbirds display at Duxford in the UK. These aircraft always steal the show. The howl from the cowling must be heard as she dives at full throttle. Best British aircraft ever built by far.

Sort of. It was built to a British requirement by an American company using American built RR Engines (after first using the Allison) USAF didn't want it at first, they went with the P-37 but when they saw the performance with the Merlin they put it into service as well.

I wouldn't go so far as to say it's the aircraft that won the war. It has its strenghts and weaknesses just like any aircraft.

captain swoop
2009-Dec-04, 11:11 AM
Raymond Loewy's streamlined locomotive design. (http://www.raymondloewy.org/gallery/loc_loewy_ss1.html) Loewy claimed that he was trying to improve the performance of the loco by streamlining it.

Apart from the A4 class the streamlining on steram locos didn't realy do anything much for performance. It made them look faster. In dyno car tests on British rails even on the A4 the increase in performance was only marginal and on the LMS Coronations it made no difference whatsoever.

All but the A4s were rebuilt as conventional Locomotives as maintainance time was increased with the streamline casing and some jobs weren't getting done as they involved removing sections of casing to get access. On the A4s the casing had been designed in such a way that there was no difference in procedures between them and the 'naked' Pacifics on the LNER so it would have cost more than they would have saved by removing it.

Larry Jacks
2009-Dec-04, 02:32 PM
P51 Mustang. The aircraft that really won the war. I go to The warbirds display at Duxford in the UK. These aircraft always steal the show. The howl from the cowling must be heard as she dives at full throttle. Best British aircraft ever built by far.


Sort of. It was built to a British requirement by an American company using American built RR Engines (after first using the Allison) USAF didn't want it at first, they went with the P-37 but when they saw the performance with the Merlin they put it into service as well.

The XP-51, P-51A, and the A-36 Apache dive bomber (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_A-36) version all used Allison engines. The Allison provided good performance at low altitudes. Some British genius (likely a hot-rodder) wondered what would happen if they put one of their magnificent Rolls Royce Merlin engines in the Mustang airframe. The results were outstanding so the Merlin (built in the US by the Packard company under license) became the engine of choice for almost all following Mustang models. The Merlin provided excellent high altitude performance. North American - the Mustang's manufacturer - added additional fuel tanks behind the pilot's seat to increase the internal fuel capacity. Those tanks, combined with drop tanks, gave the Mustang the range needed to escort bombers all of the way to Berlin and back while still having the maneuverability and firepower to take on the Luftwaffe's best fighters. Herman Goring reportedly stated that when he saw Mustangs flying over Berlin, he knew Germany had lost the war.

captain swoop
2009-Dec-04, 02:40 PM
And when asked what he needed to beat the RAF in the Battle of Britain Adolf Galland reportedly told Goering 'A squadron of Spitfires'

Packards version of the Merlin was re engineered to conform to US standards and it was also simplified. . RR Merlins were designed in peacetime and could be stripped and have new liners in the cylinders etc, under wartime conditions there wasn't the time to spend hours of highly skilled labour rebuilding engines and there was a big backlog waiting in the factory and RAF workshops. With the Packard Quantity replaced overall quality but it meant that there were plenty of engines available as they were quicker and cheaper to manufacture.

Larry Jacks
2009-Dec-04, 03:34 PM
And when asked what he needed to beat the RAF in the Battle of Britain Adolf Galland reportedly told Goering 'A squadron of Spitfires'

Galland himself claimed he made that statement in his book, The First and the Last (http://www.amazon.com/First-Last-Adolf-Galland/dp/0899667287/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259940171&sr=8-1). It's a good book.

As the war progressed, US military hardware was simplified as you describe to increase production. Back then, they realized that many of the planes would be lucky to last a few hundred hours of service before being shot down or destroyed in a crash. The policy followed Joseph Stalin's observation that "quantity has a quality all it's own." It was a effective policy. The Germans made some wonderful tanks but couldn't build enough of them. Over 80,000 of the rugged Soviet T-34 tanks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-34) were built along with some 50,000 of the decidedly inferior M-4 Sherman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_Sherman), compared to about 1,300 of the superiorTiger I (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_I) and 6,000 Panther tanks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panther_tank). The German tanks were usually better but they just couldn't survive in the face of such overwhelming opposition.

captain swoop
2009-Dec-04, 03:52 PM
They weren't that much better, they had terrible engine problems, if it won't go it doesn't matter how good your gun or armour are.

German Radar equipment used in aircraft were all built in lovely cases and cabinets, RAF sets looked half finished but was easy to modify when changes were made as it was recognised that what was being put into service were were more or less mass produced prototypes which would be replaced fairly quickly as the technology was advancing rapidly.

Tuckerfan
2009-Dec-04, 04:14 PM
And when asked what he needed to beat the RAF in the Battle of Britain Adolf Galland reportedly told Goering 'A squadron of Spitfires'

Packards version of the Merlin was re engineered to conform to US standards and it was also simplified. . RR Merlins were designed in peacetime and could be stripped and have new liners in the cylinders etc, under wartime conditions there wasn't the time to spend hours of highly skilled labour rebuilding engines and there was a big backlog waiting in the factory and RAF workshops. With the Packard Quantity replaced overall quality but it meant that there were plenty of engines available as they were quicker and cheaper to manufacture.

I saw an interview with the official Rolls Royce historian who was talking about the Packard built Merlin engines and it was positively painful for him to have to admit that the Packard engines were well made.

Clive Tester
2009-Dec-04, 05:21 PM
I've seen many different aircraft both on display and in flight from many different countries, but the one aircraft I've never seen in flight is the A.V. Roe and Company

Mugaliens: You may yet, see and hear a Vulcan. One Vulcan has been restored to flight capability.

I remember a display at the West Malling air show. It was magical. The noise was so intense, that it set off all of the car alarms in the car park. Hundreds of car alarms could be heard, after the display had finished.

Henrik, et al. Thanks for the tips on adding links.

Larry Jacks
2009-Dec-04, 05:25 PM
The Merlin engine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merlin_engine) series was incredibly important. For those who don't know, here's a list of planes that saw service in WWII and were powered by the Merlin:

Hawker Hurricane (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawker_Hurricane) (all variants)
Supermarine Spitfire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermarine_Spitfire) and Seafire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermarine_Seafire) (most variants, later Spitfires used the Griffin engine)
North American P-51 Mustang (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-51_Mustang) (B model and higher)
Curtiss Wright P-40 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtiss_P-40) (F and L models)
Avro Lancaster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Lancaster) (main British heavy bomber)
Hadley Page Halifax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handley_Page_Halifax) (another British heavy bomber)
De Havilland Mosquito (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Mosquito) (fighter/bomber/reconnaissance)

Not every Merlin powered airplane was successful, but you can't blame the failures of the Boulton Paul Defiant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boulton_Paul_Defiant) on the engine. It was just a flawed concept.

Merlin engines soldiered on well past the end of the war. Spain built their versions of the He-111 bomber (the CASA 2.111 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CASA_2.111)) and Bf-109G fighter (HA-1112 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispano_Aviaci%C3%B3n_HA-1112)) and powered them with Merlins. If you watch movies like "The Battle of Britain", you'll see those Spainish planes flying. They're distinguishable from the German versions by the engine exhaust ports. The German models have the exhaust ports on the bottom of the engine nacelles while the Merlin exhaust ports are at the top. Spain kept the HA-1112 in operational service until 1965 (!)

Clive Tester
2009-Dec-04, 05:27 PM
I find the Soyuz rocket to be very appealing visually too. And the LK lunar lander really looks the business. It is a very fine looking spacecraft to my eye.

See it here:-

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/lk.html

captain swoop
2009-Dec-04, 06:00 PM
Derated and 'Sumped' versions of the Merlin renamed Meteor powered the Cromwell tank in the war making it the fastest in service and the Centurion tank postwar into the late 60s.

KaiYeves
2009-Dec-04, 10:22 PM
There's something about Concorde (http://www.eclipse-chasers.com/byAir/e1973small.jpg)...

publiusr
2009-Dec-04, 10:25 PM
Some resources in the world of architecture
http://www.amazon.com/Mies-van-Rohe-Critical-Biography/dp/0226740609http://www.rietveldacademie.nl/designblog/?tag=mies-van-de-rohe

And ever since, we have been in a box.

Better
http://www.id.iit.edu/externalID/index.php?id=1010 This might be what the one atmosphere airship from Exodus Earth might look like
http://science.discovery.com/tv/exodus-earth/about/about.html

Strange
2009-Dec-04, 11:05 PM
I can't get very excited about trains, planes or automobiles but I do agree that aesthetics is an essential part of engineering. To the extent that, in software engineering, it almost becomes a "moral imperative" to write good code. I don't know if I can explain that, other than to say it makes you feel bad (dirty) when you have to maintain or, worse, write "bad" code.

My father, who was an artist, borrowed one of my programming books; he came back a few days later and said "it's just about good design, isn't it". Quite.

HenrikOlsen
2009-Dec-04, 11:13 PM
There's something about Concorde (http://www.eclipse-chasers.com/byAir/e1973small.jpg)...
Which was also powered by Rolls-Royce engines:)

KaiYeves
2009-Dec-04, 11:20 PM
Which was also powered by Rolls-Royce engines
True.

captain swoop
2009-Dec-05, 12:06 AM
Plus the same engine powered the Vulcan Bomber. Concorde used a supersonic derivative designed for the cancelled TSR2 supersonic bomber. Olympus engines also power the Invincible Class Aircraft Carriers, Type 42 Destroyers and Types 21 and 22 Frigates. French, Belgian Dutch and Finnish warships also use it. In the USA it was built under licence as the J67.

Good design gets used, in fact Rolls Royce didn't design it. Bristol Aero Engines did, RR acquired it after their take over in 1966.

DrRocket
2009-Dec-05, 12:31 AM
Referring to an earlier post, by Mugaliens (Any one here know how I can attach a link to another post on another thread?).

One of the most beautiful and inspiring things that I have ever witnessed was the AVRO Vulcan bomber, at air displays. Its grace was stunning, and the roar from its engines at full thrust shook the body. It was absolutely awe inspiring. I saw the Vulcan in flight in the 80s, and on what was probably one of the final displays in the early 90s. To this day the memories are still emotive and strong.

I thought at the time, that it could qualify purely as a work of art. I thought that it was ironic, that something so beautiful and so elegant was conceived out of mankind’s propensity for warfare. But, maybe the Vulcan and the like prevented a big war; who knows.

I was present for the launch of the Cassini probe and participated in the process of designing and manufacturing the booster and declaring it ready to launch. That was impressive display of engineering. It got off the pad and out of sight in about a minute, during darkness, a dazzling plume serving to accentuate the raw power and the roar of the rockets -- next stop Saturn.

danscope
2009-Dec-05, 06:22 AM
That was a marvelous piece of work,Sir. And well done.
Best regards,
Dan

Clive Tester
2009-Dec-06, 06:56 PM
I was present for the launch of the Cassini probe and participated in the process of designing and manufacturing the booster and declaring it ready to launch. That was impressive display of engineering. It got off the pad and out of sight in about a minute, during darkness, a dazzling plume serving to accentuate the raw power and the roar of the rockets -- next stop Saturn.
:cool:
I would love to work in a team that was involved in such a project. Are there many roles for chemists or quality control/quality assurance specialists, in that line of work?

Delvo
2009-Dec-07, 06:08 AM
Strange how people keep calling the A10A Warthog ugly then. It's my impression it flies quite well.And it keeps flying even if you destroy half of its wing & fin surfaces.

Then there's the X-32, which did lose to the X-35 in the contest to pick the next light fighter (F-35), but just the fact that it was considered at all means it must have flown at least as well as the previous generation of fighters, and I'm still not sure whether to say that thing looked more like a pelican with a goiter or an F-16 that swallowed a bus. Enemies would have been laughing at it even while it was kicking their butts. (But I won't accuse the Air Force of choosing based just on looks, because if they did that, then right now we'd have "F-23s" on the production lines!)

But I like the way A-10s look, as well as some other kinds of planes that don't look much like fighters, because of how their shapes are still dictated by the jobs they are meant to do. And I think that if X-32 had won the contest and become the next light fighter, we would have ended up thinking it looks pretty good too, just as the fighters we've been used to for years would have looked silly to somebody who was used to the fighters of WWII. What looks good is not independent of functionality (or at least our impressions of functionality), but mostly based on it, so that whatever strikes us as an effective design defines our asthetic model as well... and that works not just for aircraft but also for all kinds of other inventions too.

adapa
2009-Dec-07, 04:44 PM
And it keeps flying even if you destroy half of its wing & fin surfaces.

Then there's the X-32, which did lose to the X-35 in the contest to pick the next light fighter (F-35), but just the fact that it was considered at all means it must have flown at least as well as the previous generation of fighters, and I'm still not sure whether to say that thing looked more like a pelican with a goiter or an F-16 that swallowed a bus. Enemies would have been laughing at it even while it was kicking their butts. (But I won't accuse the Air Force of choosing based just on looks, because if they did that, then right now we'd have "F-23s" on the production lines!)

But I like the way A-10s look, as well as some other kinds of planes that don't look much like fighters, because of how their shapes are still dictated by the jobs they are meant to do. And I think that if X-32 had won the contest and become the next light fighter, we would have ended up thinking it looks pretty good too, just as the fighters we've been used to for years would have looked silly to somebody who was used to the fighters of WWII. What looks good is not independent of functionality (or at least our impressions of functionality), but mostly based on it, so that whatever strikes us as an effective design defines our asthetic model as well... and that works not just for aircraft but also for all kinds of other inventions too.

True. Also, speaking of aesthetics, let's not forget the XB-70 Valkyrie (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/FactSheets/FS-084-DFRC.html). Not only could it use suction to delay boundary layer separation at high angles of attack, but it also used compression lift at supersonic speeds. This enabled it to ride its own shock waves (like a surfer) and made it very efficient at high speeds. It could also fly at Mach 3.:cool:

IsaacKuo
2009-Dec-07, 04:57 PM
The A-10 can't match the feat of one Israeli F-15. It landed with one entire wing ripped off at the root.

With the A-10's wide wings and thin body, it wouldn't be able to do that.

peteshimmon
2009-Dec-07, 10:26 PM
I cannot be a wet blanket to you flight
enthusiasts but the external form of some
aeroplanes is surely a very small part of the
OP's query. I tend to think of the vast
amount of work done over the decades in the
improvement of engineering artifacts.

Single crystal turbine blades..better
metallergy in components for jets, car
engines..electronic integrated circuits..
CCDs..flat screen displays...

Millions of people doing things to get
better results for manufacturing effort.
And when things work it is aesthetically
right.

And there is chemical engineering,
medical engineering...it is vast.

swampyankee
2009-Dec-07, 11:17 PM
True. Also, speaking of aesthetics, let's not forget the XB-70 Valkyrie (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/FactSheets/FS-084-DFRC.html). Not only could it use suction to delay boundary layer separation at high angles of attack, but it also used compression lift at supersonic speeds. This enabled it to ride its own shock waves (like a surfer) and made it very efficient at high speeds. It could also fly at Mach 3.:cool:

No, it did not use suction to delay boundary layer separation; it used vortices shed from its wing leading edge to do so. So did the Concord, and numerous other aircraft with highly swept delta wings, and so did propfans.

Delvo
2009-Dec-08, 04:34 AM
I cannot be a wet blanket to you flight
enthusiasts but the external form of some
aeroplanes is surely a very small part of the
OP's query.My last post as you see it now is shortened from what I was originally going to post before I decided it was too babbly and redundant. I would have included cars, trucks, SUVs, motorcycles, bicycles, skateboards, and even swords as opposed to axes and pole weapons like spears. It just would have gotten repetitive; the point in each case would have just been that it was just another example of the rule that our idea of how good an invention looks is defined by how well it does what we're interested in having it do.

DrRocket
2009-Dec-08, 04:45 AM
:cool:
I would love to work in a team that was involved in such a project. Are there many roles for chemists or quality control/quality assurance specialists, in that line of work?

Yes to both.

Middenrat
2009-Dec-08, 04:56 AM
Doc I Googled that launch and she went up like a scalded cat. The sense of urgency in the launch control room must have been good for an extra m/s !

SkepticJ
2009-Dec-09, 09:52 PM
Beautiful flying things:

SR-71 Blackbird

Horten 229


Elegantly simple machines:

Gimbals

Mark Rosheim's Omni-Wrist III

Scrollerwheel bearings

Swashplates

Clive Tester
2010-Jan-08, 07:35 PM
Elegantly simple machines:



Skeptic, et al. Thanks for your posts.
I find the BSA Bantam appealing. There is beauty in its simplicity.

rommel543
2010-Jan-08, 08:30 PM
For aircraft, I only have one that sticks out in my mind.. a Bristol Beaufighter (http://www.military.cz/british/air/war/fighter/beaufighter/beaufighter_en.htm). My Grandfather flew them during WWII.

As for beauty in simplicity, I saw some pictures of Nano machines awhile back. I thought that they were amazing.

danscope
2010-Jan-08, 10:02 PM
The Beaufighter was a pretty quick bird if I remember correctly.
He must have been a very good pilot. These things went in harm's way.

Best regards,
Dan

rommel543
2010-Jan-08, 10:09 PM
The Beaufighter was a pretty quick bird if I remember correctly.
He must have been a very good pilot. These things went in harm's way.

Best regards,
Dan

He flew night runs over France and Germany. Got shot down 3 times and was put into POW camps twice, escaped both times. He gave me his pocket knife that he carried and used to escape with.

Clive Tester
2010-Jan-08, 10:11 PM
For aircraft, I only have one that sticks out in my mind.. a Bristol Beaufighter (http://www.military.cz/british/air/war/fighter/beaufighter/beaufighter_en.htm). My Grandfather flew them during WWII.

As for beauty in simplicity, I saw some pictures of Nano machines awhile back. I thought that they were amazing.

Nice one, Rommel543. Take a look at the DH108 - a real gem.