Mir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 19687 posts, RR: 56 Reply 1, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 3593 times:
Yeah, it's not a looker. It's not the nose that kills it for me, though, it's the way the fuselage just looks stubby. I'm thinking the -9 version will look better.
-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
Burkhard From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4248 posts, RR: 2 Reply 2, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 3593 times:
I would call its appearance. from the side, average. JAT - just another twin. From below, the rather long and bended wings might make it looking good waiting to judge real life.. So maybe it can reach the same level of beauty the 764 and 77W have.
wilco737 From Greenland, joined Jun 2004, 8473 posts, RR: 78 Reply 7, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 3307 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD MODERATOR
Maybe it is not the best looking airplane out there due to its nose, but good looking is always very different from person to person. The different nose makes it somewhat special and easy to spot.
Here some great angles where she just looks gorgeous:
vheca From Australia, joined May 2007, 259 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks ago) and read 3111 times:
Quoting wilco737 (Reply 7): Maybe it is not the best looking airplane out there due to its nose, but good looking is always very different from person to person. The different nose makes it somewhat special and easy to spot.
Here some great angles where she just looks gorgeous:
I CONCUR!
Vheca
Types Flown on - 312,320,722,732,733,73H,73W,742,743,74C,752,762,AB4,D1C,D28,DHT,F27,L11
qf002 From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 2552 posts, RR: 1 Reply 9, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks ago) and read 3072 times:
Quoting Max Q (Reply 6): Thing is, the Caravelle was much 'slimmer'
The -9 and potential -10 models will both look 'slimmer' so should be prettier... IMO it's pretty stunning as it is - doesn't have an ugly frown like the A330 nor the dopey eyes of the 767 or the long forehead of the 777...
Rara From Germany, joined Jan 2007, 1823 posts, RR: 3 Reply 11, posted (1 year 9 months 4 weeks ago) and read 3057 times:
Quoting wilco737 (Reply 7):
Here some great angles where she just looks gorgeous:
The wings are certainly a killer, but the same can be said of the A380.
Other than that, yeah... just like the A380, the 787 sure doesn't fit my definition of beauty. For a while I thought they just need some time to grow on you, but I'm starting to doubt that. Thankfully, there's still the 747-8i to make a visually appealing "new" aircraft...
Samson was a biblical tough guy, but his dad Samsonite was even more of a hard case.
oldeuropean From Germany, joined exactly 8 years ago today! , 1900 posts, RR: 4 Reply 14, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 2710 times:
sofianec From Germany, joined Aug 2007, 230 posts, RR: 2 Reply 15, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 2667 times:
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. To me 747 is beautiful, the A380 is beautiful, the 787 is beautiful, hell TU154 is very beautiful. I mean to call 787 ugly is like calling your wife ugly 'cause she gained a few extra pounds.
UpperDeck From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2010, 43 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 2647 times:
Brave thread!
There's rarely such a thing as an ugly aircraft. The aerodynamic requirements generally prompt something beautiful, however I am disappointed with the final look of the 787-8 as it appears more like an overweight 767 with a weird nose and some stunning wings - but it's always going to be function over form. Fingers crossed that the stretched variants look a little more graceful.
EPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 3582 posts, RR: 36 Reply 17, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 2599 times:
Quoting qf002 (Reply 9): The -9 and potential -10 models will both look 'slimmer' so should be prettier
No doubt they will. .
Quoting Rara (Reply 11): The wings are certainly a killer, but the same can be said of the A380.
So true, the wings on both these new airliners have a high flex rate which you can see very good if the planes touch-down and the wings "sink into the rest position". .
Quoting wilco737 (Reply 13): But let's stick to the topic. The lovely 787...
I personally think she is quite a looker. Not as elegant yet as the A330 maybe, but the longer versions could very well be just as nice looking imho, and might even be better looking.
Max Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 3288 posts, RR: 19 Reply 18, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 2561 times:
DM From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 336 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 2506 times:
Man I remember when the 787 had the original 7E7 images going and I was just like man that's gonna be awesome!
Oh well, I still like the 787 as it is now but if it looked like that ^ whoa!
Gunsontheroof From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 3460 posts, RR: 11 Reply 21, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 2242 times:
Mods: How has this not been moved to polls/prefs? Pretty cut and dry candidate as far as I'm concerned.
The 787-8 won't be going down in history as the "looker" of the family, but it's definitely got it's angles and insofar as I'm concerned (I live in Seattle with a nice view of westbound approaches to BFI), needs to be seen in flight to be fully appreciated. The 787-9 and (godwilling) 787-10 are going to be absolute stunners.
tropical From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2008, 81 posts, RR: 0 Reply 22, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 2215 times:
I wish the sharkfin tail would have been kept... but of course, a/c designers don't have looks as their overriding concern.
My favourite 2-holers looks-wise are probably the 767 and & A330. 777 is pleasing to the eye too. My overall favourite has to be the A345 though... proportionally she is pretty close to perfect.
CXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2182 posts, RR: 4 Reply 23, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 2173 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW CHAT OPERATOR
The 787-8 hasn't really grown on me yet. Sure, the interior looks fantastic, but I'm just not so sure about its exterior. I wouldn't go so far as to call it "ugly", but perhaps the 787-9 will look better. To me, it's not the nose that spoils it, but the proportions - it just appears too short, and the large windows disguises the size of the aircraft quite well.
Best lookers? To my eyes, the 747-400 rules in terms of aesthetics, followed by the 747-8, 777-300ER, and A340-500. Maybe the 787-9 will make that list too.
PGNCS From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 2511 posts, RR: 45 Reply 24, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 2116 times:
Quoting Max Q (Thread starter): The first artists impressions of the 787 showed a great looking Aircraft, with a very sleek nose shape.
Since the redesign, which I understand was necessary for visibility purposes imho the nose is way too 'blunt'
It spoils the look of an otherwise great looking Aircraft.
Kudos, Max Q for venturing into such risky terrain! I rarely get into these aesthetics threads as it really is a matter of personal preference, but I actually agree with you wholeheartedly on this one.
Maybe I am imagining what you are saying wrong.. but to me that would just make it look more like a 767.
I think it's quite beautiful and reminds me of the Caravelle, which was a stunner.
Thing is, the Caravelle was much 'slimmer'
The Caravelle had nicer (and slimmer) proportions to be sure. It's no Caravelle, but at least it's no 767 either.
Quoting KPDX (Reply 5): I am imagining what you are saying wrong.. but to me that would just make it look more like a 767.
I don't know if that would be right; the 767 is somewhat blunt too, though not as squashed looking as the 787.
Quoting Rara (Reply 11): Other than that, yeah... just like the A380, the 787 sure doesn't fit my definition of beauty. For a while I thought they just need some time to grow on you, but I'm starting to doubt that.
I thought the same thing, especially after seeing the original PR impressions of the aircraft; now I'm convinced it's aesthetically just another dumpy Boeing like the 762 or pretty much any 737.
Quoting UpperDeck (Reply 16): There's rarely such a thing as an ugly aircraft. The aerodynamic requirements generally prompt something beautiful, however I am disappointed with the final look of the 787-8 as it appears more like an overweight 767 with a weird nose and some stunning wings - but it's always going to be function over form.
You are absolutely right: there is no doubt the 787 will do its mission well, but it's mission is functional, it's not a piece of art, it's a people-mover.
Quoting EPA001 (Reply 17): Quoting wilco737 (Reply 13):
But let's stick to the topic. The lovely 787...
I personally think she is quite a looker. Not as elegant yet as the A330 maybe, but the longer versions could very well be just as nice looking imho, and might even be better looking.
I agree and disagree with you EPA. I agree the 787 will never be as elegant as an A-330 (or a long-bodied Tristar!) and I do think the longer versions will be more aesthetically proportional. I don't agree that in the present form that the 787 is a "looker." Just personal preference.
Quoting Max Q (Reply 18): Well , to each his own, i think the 747, particularly the classic is, perhaps the best looking subsonic Airliner ever made.
Sorry, L-1011 has to win for me. I've never found the 747 attractive, even when I was young and in awe of the size of the thing.
Quoting Max Q (Reply 18): The A380 has to be the ugliest.
I actually think the 737 is the ugliest (the shorter the fuselage, the uglier,) but I do agree with you that the A-380 is not the belle of the ball, and is certainly the ugliest Airbus.
Quoting CXB77L (Reply 23): The 787-8 hasn't really grown on me yet. Sure, the interior looks fantastic, but I'm just not so sure about its exterior. I wouldn't go so far as to call it "ugly", but perhaps the 787-9 will look better. To me, it's not the nose that spoils it, but the proportions - it just appears too short, and the large windows disguises the size of the aircraft quite well.
That pretty well sums up the 787's offenses against the art world!
25 solnabo: A333 - A340-500/600 & B773ER not in service: CV-990 Coronado hands down Sorry, got carried away.. the 788 will grow on me, cant wait for the 789
26 Delimit: 748i is about as good as it gets in my mind. The new wings, larger engines and longer upper deck all improve on what was already a stunner. I'd follo
27 HorizonGirl: My opinion? I think it looks like a banana. Seriously, it is a stunning aircraft! But the shape of the fuselage always makes me think of a banana if i
28 Max Q: The L1011 is definitely a close second, the Tristar was and is a beautiful Aircraft. Yes the 737 is not a great looker, i actually like the look of t
29 Tigerguy: From a certain angle (as you're looking up at it while it's overhead, especially in a turn), I think the 73G kinda looks like a baby A330. At any rat
30 Max Q: The 748F with the shorter upper deck is particularly good looking.
31 FRAIAD: I like the look of the 787. But I'm actually waiting for the 787-9 because, I thing, the longer fuselage will make it an even more beautiful plane. Ap
32 N126DL: The 737 from a front-facing view reminds me very much of the red bird from the "Angry Birds" game. It's the plane that most resembles a true bird to
33 Mir: Didn't see it before, but now I do. And the more I look at it, the more the nose just irks me. It's interesting that for all the complaining about ho
34 Babybus: It's not exactly pretty as a picture. As mentioned before it just looks like any other twin jet. There is something about the front of it that reminds
35 carbon787: pretty I would not say, it is certainly unique with that nose and those wings...wow, they are something! Ugly, heck no.....aerodynamics not withstandi
37 ACDC8: I'm by no means a Boeing Fan Boy and I will admit that I do prefer Airbus over most Boeings in regards to looks and comfort, but I will admit that the
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined May 2001, 3288 posts, 
From Germany, joined Nov 2006, 4248 posts, 
From Greenland, joined Jun 2004, 8473 posts, 
From Australia, joined May 2007, 259 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 784 posts, 
From Poland, joined Jul 2004, 1702 posts, 
, 1900 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2010, 43 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 3582 posts, 
.
From Denmark, joined Apr 2010, 263 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
