Or alternatively, as the American aviators apparently said during WW2: If it’s ugly, it’s British. If it’s weird, it’s French. And if it’s ugly AND weird, it’s Russian. (Though I’m sure they made an exception for the Spitfire).
And +1 to @skydriller, the Merlin just makes a wonderful sound. There is nothing quite like it. On the other hand, the Russian radials are like flying a tractor.
Silvaire wrote:
The form of a plane is driven by function
To paraphrase Saint Exupéry: the aeroplane is beautiful because everything unnecessary has been removed and only the essence remains.
Il semble que la perfection soit atteinte non quand il n’y a plus rien à ajouter, mais quand il n’y a plus rien à retrancher. Terre de Hommes (1939)
[Perfection is finally attained not when there is no longer anything to add but when there is no longer anything to take away. Wind Sand and Stars]
I say nothing of Mustangs, but…
If you are not at all moved by the sight and sound of a merlin engined spitfire doing a classic curving approach, low pass, climb, and departing roll, then you have no soul…
EuroGA hosts mostly men (is that true @Peter?) so I’ll venture in that I think that pilots appreciate an aircraft in a similar way they do for the opposite sex, by using a certain set of fixed parameters for a first visual assessment.
I might be justifiably accused of that with Italian motorcycles, but not with planes. Seeing some types of plane warms my heart due to memories or reputation, and as mentioned I do like planes that are intuitive and light to operate, but visual attraction is not what they’re about for me. There are some that are notably ugly to me but few of the opposite. The form of a plane is driven by function and I admire them for that, but with very few exceptions I don’t find them beautiful. I like their familiar feel and smell, the way they are made and their under-stressed and well engineered reliability. The SF260 is close but its lines are still predictable, not novel or exciting. The closest to beautiful for me might be my polished ex-Luscombe which was a cute little rascal. Tadpole planes that look like marine life don’t visually appeal. YMMV.
The dessert for any pilot will of course be served by that stare in the cockpit, the fascination exerted by the dials, glass, knobs, switches, sticks, yokes, and more.
That does work for me, with the exception of ‘glass’
For most of us the barking Merlin is for sure more fascinating than the nerving whine of electric motors
My local friend took off in his P-51 today while I was at the airport and the unwavering roar was more like painful noise to me than pleasant sound. Big aircraft engines do not sound like 1960s GP engines, they drone along making their power like an industrial engine. Meanwhile, an electric motor or Rotax 912 sounds like a home appliance. My favorite was the A-65 at 2150 RPM but my O-320 is fine too, unassuming and capable, and I’d rather be flying behind one in an RV than flying in the Mustang. Or maybe a Franklin, smooth as can be. It’s calm and timeless, just a more satisfying thing to me in a plane 
“As someone surrounded by Jodel DR1050 and other Jodels which IMO are great value for money, can I ask why you prefer the Bolkow?”
I don’t. The Jodel Group had to sell due to too many members health (age). A Bolkow Group was forming, so I joined it. £15,000, needing 8.33, ModeS, and a repaint. £30,000+ when all done.
I had to buy others out. I did almost all the flying.
But the Bolkow cockpit is warm. That’s the only thing I prefer.
Fully agree with @Udo_r that great looking planes fly well too ;)
But there seems to be some form of limit. The modern very thin tail segment is disliked by many. Modern gliders have that, and Diamonds and some other modern designs, too.
Someone at Diamond told me the thin tail is actually a disadvantage aerodynamically, but overall there were other compromises so it stays.
At the risk of being once more called sexiest by my wife (don’t think she’s spying on me thru this distinguished forum…), some of those SEP are just plain attractive, whilst others are just disgusting, or offending, to my eyes and little brain.
Sure don’t wanna get lynched this early (🤣…🙈) in life, so no example of the latter.
Most of the spam cams are… characterless, neutral, or plain ugly. Talking about say a classic design such as a C-150 or 172, one would hardly call this a beauty or sexy design. The same being valid for Indian tribes and most of the others.
Where it is getting more varied and therefore interesting is in the homebuilt or experimental category. Not only performance wise, where one can encounter the ugliest chainsaw powered 30kts cruise UL or the slickest all weather capable ocean crossing cruiser, but again, in the differing looks. Some look like the carton box you new shoes came in, whilst other exhibit sleek lines reminiscent of some of the sea or air natural inhabitants.
Perception of beauty is for sure individual, and probably dependant on education (an artist painter will have a different view on a design than say bricklayer) as well as private interests (soccer vs classical music?).
EuroGA hosts mostly men (is that true @Peter?) so I’ll venture in that I think that pilots appreciate an aircraft in a similar way they do for the opposite sex, by using a certain set of fixed parameters for a first visual assessment.
Staying on subject (😉), seeing an aircraft in flight or on the ramp for the first time, the general shape as in thin or fat, squarish and raked or rounded, hi or lo wing, monoplane or multiplane, retracts or not, general proportions, etc, will be assessed. Moving closer to, or the other way round, the object, more details such as wing thickness, fairings, etc, will become apparent. The dessert for any pilot will of course be served by that stare in the cockpit, the fascination exerted by the dials, glass, knobs, switches, sticks, yokes, and more.
Last but not least, the sound. Noise or music. For most of us the barking Merlin is for sure more fascinating than the nerving whine of electric motors.
So yes, there might be a link between aircraft type and owner personality. Sometimes. More often than not the aircraft owned or rented is a reflections of one’s needs or mission. Budget constraints sure also play an important role for most of us.
Yet another point is personal satisfaction. Whilst I’m quite happy to own and fly a super versatile steed, it still doesn’t cover all the needs, or desires, I could have. But I’m more than happy with that situation, though it’s all compromise.
OTOH I know more than one pilot owning more than 1 airplane. I have a few friends owning 2 airplanes, but also a couple of them owning 4 airplanes…
UdoR wrote:
That doesn’t extend to supersonic aircraft
What? Saab Draken, Mirage III, Starfighter, F-16, MiG-29 etc. Especially Draken, Mirage III and the Starfighter. They were all designed specifically for supersonic flight, among the first, if not the firsts to go MACH 2. They are all among the best looking aircraft of all time. Not to mention the Concorde.
For GA, aesthetics is a large factor in the design. That and practicalities. Aerodynamics, other than the most basics, is more of an afterthought in general.
“Beauty is in the eye of the beholder”
But I would take issue with you about the Spitfire’s rounded ends. That design goes back much further than aviation as can be seen if you have ever seen the wings of a bird called a “Hobby” (small falcon) in the UK.
