Best-looking/most aesthetically pleasing airliner(s)?

[Strathclyder]

A very subjective question with a whole range of potential answers/debate. Just the sort of question I seem to excel at asking lol

Piston, turboprop and jet-powered examples are all eligble. Here are a few of my picks for each propulsion type:

Piston
The Lockheed Constellation family
Boeing 247
Douglas DC-3
Douglas DC-6
Avro Tudor

Turboprop
Vickers Viscount/Vanguard
Lockheed L-188 Electra
Tupolev Tu-114
Hawker Siddeley HS.748

Jet
Concorde
Vickers VC-10
de Havilland Comet
Sud-Aviation Caravelle
Dassault Mercure
Convair 880 & 990 Coranado
Ilyushin Il-86 & Il-96
The Boeing 747 family
Airbus A340
All tri-jet airliners (DC-10/MD-11, L-1011 Tristar, 727, Trident, Tu-154)

 

[gabrielhj07]

Airbus A340

I'd like to object to the -200 and -300 being described as anything other that 'ugly'.

727

Yes, especially M-STAR!

 

[Strathclyder]

I'd like to object to the -200 and -300 being described as anything other that 'ugly'.

I wouldn't call the -200 & -300 ugly, more oddly proportioned. My pick(s) of the A340 family has to be the -500 & -600 though. Virgin Atlantic's -600s were stunning looking things imo.

Yes, especially M-STAR!

Just looked that up and whoa boy. That livery takes at least 20 years off of a design that has already aged like fine wine. Would be my private jet of choice, no question about it.

 

[edwin_m]

All tri-jet airliners (DC-10/MD-11, L-1011 Tristar, 727, Trident, Tu-154)

I'd exempt the DC-10. That engine perched on the tail looks like it's going to fall off at any moment. Although in fact it was the wing-mounted ones that most often did that.

 

[Ken H]

Lancaster. Superb aircraft.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'd exempt the DC-10. That engine perched on the tail looks like it's going to fall off at any moment. Although in fact it was the wing-mounted ones that most often did that.

The DC-10 was just a badly designed, dangerous heap of junk in pretty much every way. The MD-11 was barely better, either.

I think the Queen of the Skies, the 747, has a certain grace. And the Boeing 777-300ER has a nice look to it (the shorter ones look a bit stubby). Generally I think longer airframes look better, so of e.g. the A320 series it has to be the A321.

TBH trijets are a stupid idea generally, you put the engine (something which is known, on occasions, to fail kicking out a load of shrapnel) in the middle of one of the most crucial flight surfaces. That isn't necessarily going to end well compared to putting them under the wing slightly away from other things.

 

[StKeverne1497]

Concorde beats the lot I'm afraid. Most beautiful (man-made) thing to take to the skies, ever. However, honourable mentions to the VC-10 and Comet-I (I found the less fally-out-of-the-sky Comet IV not quite so graceful). Not a fan of the Electra and I'd put a vote in for the Constellation being one of the ugliest with that mid-body bulge, almost as bad as the Shorts Skyvan (can we also post ugliest?). Likewise I've never quite got the hang of the 747 or especially the A380.

The flying boats had a certain amount of grace, particularly the Empire class.

And for quirky, I actually quite like the BAe 146 / Avro RJ. It's quite a neat looking aircraft and those four small engines make it look a bit like a child's toy.

 

[bspahh]

Fireflash

 

[Cross City]

In no particular order.

Caravelle
Constellation
757-300
737-200
Tu-134
Yak 40
Dc10-10 (the one without the middle gear bogie)
Trislander
Dassault Mercure
Gulfstream 1

 

[gabrielhj07]

TBH trijets are a stupid idea generally, you put the engine (something which is known, on occasions, to fail kicking out a load of shrapnel) in the middle of one of the most crucial flight surfaces. That isn't necessarily going to end well compared to putting them under the wing slightly away from other things.

The rate at which jet engines fail compared to the potential for damage to flight control surfaces makes a tail-mounted engine no more dangerous than one under the wing. QF32 demonstrated an equal potential for an engine failure to damage the wing.

Tri-jets were born out of a need to serve the transatlantic market with something more efficient than quad-jets, while flying twins was prohibited.

 

[Western Lord]

Tri-jets were born out of a need to serve the transatlantic market with something more efficient than quad-jets, while flying twins was prohibited.

Actually all of the tri-jets (B727, DC-10 and L1011) were born out of US domestic requirements, in particular the ability to lift a useful payload out of mile high Denver and short runways at La Guardia.

 

[Cross City]

Actually all of the tri-jets (B727, DC-10 and L1011) were born out of US domestic requirements, in particular the ability to lift a useful payload out of mile high Denver and short runways at La Guardia.

Yeah tri-jets transatlantic wasn't a thing really until the Dc10-30 came along with much better engine performance, and the L1011 shortly afterward. The Dc10 and 727 (more so the stretched version) were specifically for the longer range high capacity domestic market in the US and as you say on flights to hot & high places like Denver.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Mar 2023 ==

The rate at which jet engines fail compared to the potential for damage to flight control surfaces makes a tail-mounted engine no more dangerous than one under the wing.

This, and uncontained engine failures are extremely rare

 

[Bletchleyite]

The rate at which jet engines fail compared to the potential for damage to flight control surfaces makes a tail-mounted engine no more dangerous than one under the wing. QF32 demonstrated an equal potential for an engine failure to damage the wing.

QF32 of course damaged the wing in a non-fatal manner. Because the engine is wholly within the tail, the risk of damaging that and internal hydraulic systems etc is much higher.

Engines mounted on pylons on the sides of the tail are a different game, though I'm also not a fan (!) of this arrangement because it precludes having a rear door, and I don't wish to be on a plane without exits both sides of me.

But seeing as this is all about aesthetically pleasing aircraft - a third engine in the tail doesn't look good, either, as it makes the tail look too big and the whole plane too top heavy. The DC-10 and MD-11 are particularly monstrous. It's all remarkably reminiscent of "jumboised" ferries, where an extra couple of floors were added to the superstructure, which both makes them look awful and makes them less safe due to being top-heavy.

 

[RichJF]

Vickers VC-10. Not even a debate for me. Perfect blend of power, design and function.

 

[nlogax]

No particular order..

• B787 Dreamliner
• A350
• 727
• L-1011 Tristar
• VC-10

In terms of vintage kit the Tristar and 727 still look particularly good in comparison to DC-10s / MD-11s whose rear engine placement looked like an afterthought or something I'd have drawn when I was five years old. As for A340s versus their contemporary Airbus long range stablemates...long, thin, weirdly out of proportion especially with those small engines. Was never a fan.

 

[dosxuk]

QF32 of course damaged the wing in a non-fatal manner. Because the engine is wholly within the tail, the risk of damaging that and internal hydraulic systems etc is much higher.

QF32 was only non-fatal because of a huge amount of luck. The risk of damage to hydraulic systems is pretty much even in both areas, however the addition of fuses as standard to isolate and prevent repeats of accidents where all fluid is lost has made those systems much more reliable.

Most aircraft still have a turbine in the tail anyway, and occasionally they go bang too, causing all sorts of issues.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Most aircraft still have a turbine in the tail anyway, and occasionally they go bang too, causing all sorts of issues.

Yes, there's the APU, but they aren't generally running in the air (though in some cases they might be).

 

[Peter Mugridge]

The rate at which jet engines fail compared to the potential for damage to flight control surfaces makes a tail-mounted engine no more dangerous than one under the wing.

Yes; I'm only aware of one such instance... United 232 at Sioux City?

...and my choices of aircraft in the good looks stakes, one choice each for propellor and jet power:

* The larger versions of the Constellation with the wing tip fuel tanks added ( L1049G and L1649 ), especially in TWA livery.
* VC-10, particularly the stretched version.

The comments about the DC-10 interest me; I find it quite a nice looking aircraft myself - especially in KLM livery. With a lot of aircraft, like with trains, the livery does a lot for and against the appearance. What looks good in one livery frequently looks awful in another.

 

[trebor79]

QF32 of course damaged the wing in a non-fatal manner. Because the engine is wholly within the tail, the risk of damaging that and internal hydraulic systems etc is much higher.

Engines mounted on pylons on the sides of the tail are a different game, though I'm also not a fan (!) of this arrangement because it precludes having a rear door, and I don't wish to be on a plane without exits both sides of me.

The reason engines are always now mounted below the wing are because:
1. It's easier to maintain and change engines if required
2. The engine and engine mount weight is carried directly by the wing, which means you don't need lots of heavy support, fuselage strengthening etc to carry the engine weight and thrust forces. It also allows for a much lighter wing to fuselage attachment and lighter wing spar, so a huge weight saving.

The VC10 had tail mounted engines because part of the design brief was to be able to operate from poor quality runways, and sticking the engines high up at the tail reduced the risk of injecting gravel, sand, debris etc.

 

[XAM2175]

The Boeing 747 family

We're not including the 747-SP in this though, are we? Ridiculous things

In terms of vintage kit the Tristar and 727 still look particularly good in comparison to DC-10s / MD-11s whose rear engine placement looked like an afterthought or something I'd have drawn when I was five years old.

Yeah, I feel the same way about the DC-10 and MD-11. The L-1011 on the other hand has a definite charm to it, and I especially liked how they looked in RAF grey.

Lockheed L-188 Electra
Tupolev Tu-114

Very definite thumbs-up from me on the Tu-114. I'm less enthusiastic about the L-188, mainly because there was something slightly clumsy about the way the nosecone blended with the windscreen - but they fixed this by the time they turned it into the P-3 Orion, for which I have a real fondness.

* VC-10, particularly the stretched version.

In response to which I'd very much like to add the Il-62. With the longer fuselage and the bigger engines they look exceptionally powerful.

 

[Cross City]

I'll throw in the A350-900/1000 for a more modern one. Looks especially good with the panda eyes which Airbus now offer.

The ill-fated Mitsubishi MRJ looked great too, like is somebody drew an Embraer 195 in anime style.

 

[birchesgreen]

I'll stick to jets - and won't include Concorde as thats too obvious - so best looking would be:

Convair 880
Airbus 320
Lockheed Tristar
Vickers VC-10
Airbus A350 and A330neo with the new cockpit window style
Boeing 757
VFW 614

 

[gabrielhj07]

Boeing 757

Especially in Britannia livery!

 

[Strathclyder]

Since a couple business jets have been nominated, I'll throw in one of my faves: the Lockheed JetStar. The first aircraft to use the rear-mounted dual engine pod design, predating both the VC-10 & Il-62 by a good few years (the prototype first flew in September 1957 with two rear-mounted Bristol Siddeley engines though, one on each side. The final quad-engine layout first appeared in 1959).

We're not including the 747-SP in this though, are we? Ridiculous things

Am a fan of the oddball airliners, and the 747-SP neatly slots into that category. That said, I personally think it looked best in Pan Am, American Airlines & original South African Airways liveries.

Very definite thumbs-up from me on the Tu-114. I'm less enthusiastic about the L-188, mainly because there was something slightly clumsy about the way the nosecone blended with the windscreen - but they fixed this by the time they turned it into the P-3 Orion, for which I have a real fondness.

I can overlook the awkward nosecone+windscreen blending on the L-188. I think it's beauty lies in it's functional, purposeful lines; this is why the Douglas DC-4, DC-6 & DC-7 appeal to me so much.

In response to which I'd very much like to add the Il-62. With the longer fuselage and the bigger engines they look exceptionally powerful.

Another vote for the Il-62 from me. Very much the VC-10's larger Soviet cousin with all the power, presence & sleek lines to match.

The comments about the DC-10 interest me; I find it quite a nice looking aircraft myself - especially in KLM livery.

Seems you and I are in the minority here in thinking the DC-10/MD-11 a nice-looking aircraft. The DC-10 looked particularly fetching in BA Landor, as did the L-1011 imo (then again, most airliners that received Landor suited it).

With a lot of aircraft, like with trains, the livery does a lot for and against the appearance. What looks good in one livery frequently looks awful in another.

Very much this.

Tu-134

Even when standing still, this one looks fast. I nominate the Tu-134's predecessor, the Tu-124, as another looker.

Trislander

Another one of those oddball/quirky passenger aircraft that appeals to me so much. Aurigny certainly got their money's worth out of theirs!

 

[birchesgreen]

Much as i admire the look of the VC-10 and thus should like the Il-62, the Ilyushin is by far the worst plane i've ever flown on so cannot really warm to it...

 

[Airline Man]

Much as i admire the look of the VC-10 and thus should like the Il-62, the Ilyushin is by far the worst plane i've ever flown on so cannot really warm to it...

I get what you mean. I quite like the Il-62 and have flown on them but it will never match the grace of a VC-10.

I’m not a great fan of the Tu-114 but my favourite Soviet aircraft is the Tu-95 bomber which was based on it.



== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Mar 2023 ==

My favourite best looking aircraft has to be the VC-10 (see above).

Of the modern aircraft I’ve always had a soft spot for the 757 and I just love the look of the A350.



As you can see I do have a connection with BA!

 

[Tetchytyke]

It’s all subjective. I’m not sure about the A340, I think the A330 looks so much better, although it’s sad to see the end of the quad-jet.

On smaller jets, I have a soft spot for the Babybus A318 and the slightly bigger A319. The A321 looks like a stretch Hummer in comparison. The A318 is just cute.

My favourite plane has to be the A380. A ridiculous plane that we’ll never see the likes of again, but it amazes me how something so ridiculously huge also manages to be graceful.

Special fond mention to the ATR42 and the ATR72, though I’m not sure how much of that is truly about the aesthetic (although they have a style that the ugly Dash-8 will never have) and how much of that is because that’s generally how I get to leave the island. Same goes for the A319 if I’m honest.

 

[birchesgreen]

As you can see I do have a connection with BA!

Fantastic model collection there, i have just added an A321neo to mine, now that is a nice looking plane as well.

 

[Strathclyder]

I get what you mean. I quite like the Il-62 and have flown on them but it will never match the grace of a VC-10.

I’m not a great fan of the Tu-114 but my favourite Soviet aircraft is the Tu-95 bomber which was based on it.



== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Mar 2023 ==

My favourite best looking aircraft has to be the VC-10 (see above).

Of the modern aircraft I’ve always had a soft spot for the 757 and I just love the look of the A350.



As you can see I do have a connection with BA!

I hate to be 'that' guy, but the Tu-95 came first, the Tu-114 was based off of it.

Excellent model collection there BTW! Note the Singapore Airlines Concorde too.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Note the Singapore Airlines Concorde too.

G-BOAD. This is the one on display in New York.

What many people don't realise is it was only painted in Singapore's livery on the port side; the starboard side remained in British Airways livery.