Hello, Airliners.net members,
In your opinion, which aircraft do you find more visually appealing: the Boeing 777-300ER or the Boeing 787-10? I am aware that the Boeing 787-10 is a new aircraft, however it has already been rolled out of the factory and getting ready for its delivery to Singapore Airlines.

Purely on looks, I prefer the 787.

The 787-10, though I dislike the 787´s somewhat fat tailplane.
Generally I am not very fond of stretched airliners. Of the 787 family, I think the -9 is the prettiest. From the 777, currently the 77L, but I think the future -8 will be the best looking.

777 is a plain-jane vanilla airliner...IMHO. 787 at least has some distinctive lines, again IMHO. 787-9 is very proportional...haven't had enough looks at the -10 in photos to come up with an opinion.

I prefer the 777-300ER. Its huge fuselage and massive engines make it look very imposing.

Size matters. The 777-300ER.

I'm fond of "square" airliners (excluding the 74SP), like the 788, or anything symmetric, like the a321's wings being relatively center of the airframe (as opposed to the a320 which has more seats aft than forward of the wing).

I guess the 773 in this case (or 77W).

I love airplanes with a long fuselage (A321, B757, B747, A340) in comparison to its wings. So just optically, the B777-300ER and the B787-10 are both quite appealing in fist place. At least much more than their respective shorter sisters (the 788 and 77L have a greater wingspan than length, which is an optical no go). On the T7 I especially love the GE90 engines, which are HUGE! Besides that, I think I'll go with the Dreamliner. It just looks more different and distinguishable than any other Boeing airplane. The nose, the tail, the wings... all polished to the max. And the big windows made it always look quite small in first place, but once you see the Dreamliner (any version) in comparison to a 737 or an A320, you finally realize how big it actually is.

777-300 higher on it's legs and I like nose better the the 787. So the overall look of the aircraft puts the 777 in the winners section.

777. I dislike A350/787 style nose. A330/A340//777 are the best looking long haulers. Also, 77W is very imposing!

In terms of every measure, looks, interior spec, and overall /payload/performance the 77W is a better machine currently.

AtomicGarden wrote:

777. I dislike A350/787 style nose.

Sorry, but the A350 looks like the 787s ugly sister as far as I'm concerned. Not even the mascara around the windshield can fix that awful profile.
I always liked the 77W's looks, but there's something so graceful about the 787's wings in flight that is awesome.

Drove over to BFI when the 787-10 was making its initial arrival there and must say I was very impressed with its looks. See 77W's all the time to/from SEA and they are darned impressive for sheer size, but for overall aesthetics I vote for the 787-10

77W. I'm partial because of my username, but those GE90s are truly a sight to behold.

-Rowen

777 by far compared to the 787. The 787 has two problems for me. It has that ugly tail section and it also looks like a little troll with its short gear at similar length to the 767, it makes it look fat and weak. The nose I could take or leave, but the wings are very nice. The 777 is taller and looks like a more solid product. Did I also mention I really don't like the newer engine cowling the 787 uses with the scalloped design on the back and the thick metal look on the front.

767333ER wrote:

777 by far compared to the 787. The 787 has two problems for me. It has that ugly tail section and it also looks like a little troll with its short gear at similar length to the 767, it makes it look fat and weak. The nose I could take or leave, but the wings are very nice. The 777 is taller and looks like a more solid product.

Did I also mention I really don't like the newer engine cowling the 787 uses with the scalloped design on the back and the thick metal look on the front.

No...quite sure you didn't. Reading back through the five sentences before the quoted one, I don't think I see those specific letters forming those specific words prior to you "asking" if you'd already mentioned it. Therefore I vote "NO", you did not already mention it. I realize it wasn't a question...just rhetoric...but I couldn't resist on this Fun Friday. Now go have yourself a nice weekend!

aeromoe wrote:

767333ER wrote:

777 by far compared to the 787. The 787 has two problems for me. It has that ugly tail section and it also looks like a little troll with its short gear at similar length to the 767, it makes it look fat and weak. The nose I could take or leave, but the wings are very nice. The 777 is taller and looks like a more solid product.

Did I also mention I really don't like the newer engine cowling the 787 uses with the scalloped design on the back and the thick metal look on the front.

No...quite sure you didn't. Reading back through the five sentences before the quoted one, I don't think I see those specific letters forming those specific words prior to you "asking" if you'd already mentioned it. Therefore I vote "NO", you did not already mention it. I realize it wasn't a question...just rhetoric...but I couldn't resist on this Fun Friday. Now go have yourself a nice weekend!

Ah the struggles of speaking though text as if you are talking, I really shouldn't do that... Although maybe I have mentioned before somewhere else o don't like those engine cowlings whether they be on the 737 max, 787, or 777X.

I'm going to double-down on my 787-10 pick - just a few minutes ago #1 came over my house low and slow, then banked to line up for final to BFI - stunning looking aircraft, especially in the Dreamliner livery

The 78K is a handsome piece of engineering, whereas the 773ER has all the aesthetics of a bread van. It's just ugly. It is one aircraft I have never liked the look of.

Channex757 wrote:

The 78K is a handsome piece of engineering, whereas the 773ER has all the aesthetics of a bread van. It's just ugly. It is one aircraft I have never liked the look of.

I second your opinion.

Moe

aeromoe wrote:

Channex757 wrote:

The 78K is a handsome piece of engineering, whereas the 773ER has all the aesthetics of a bread van. It's just ugly. It is one aircraft I have never liked the look of.

I second your opinion.

Moe

Hmm, I think it's the other way around: the 78K is too long (kind of DC 8-63-ish) and it's so short-legged. I prefer the 77W.

N14AZ wrote:

aeromoe wrote:

Channex757 wrote:

The 78K is a handsome piece of engineering, whereas the 773ER has all the aesthetics of a bread van. It's just ugly. It is one aircraft I have never liked the look of.

I second your opinion.

Moe

Hmm, I think it's the other way around: the 78K is too long (kind of DC 8-63-ish) and it's so short-legged. I prefer the 77W.

I don't think the diameter/length ratio is even close to making it look DC-8-61/63-ish. Ratios are in the range of 1:10 for 787-10 and about 1:13 for DC-8. I know perceptions are subjective but to me the numbers back my perception.

Moe

aeromoe wrote:

Channex757 wrote:

The 78K is a handsome piece of engineering, whereas the 773ER has all the aesthetics of a bread van. It's just ugly. It is one aircraft I have never liked the look of.

I second your opinion.

Moe

It's probably a symptom of my madness, but looking at a 777-300ER head on always brings this to mind



Nanny from Count Duckula!!!

The 78K however has that aesthetic of a DC8-63 which retains a special place in my cold and bitter heart; the great love of my schoolboy spotter days

I really like the massive engines of the 773ER, but I prefer the overall shape of the 787 more

N14AZ wrote:

aeromoe wrote:

Channex757 wrote:

The 78K is a handsome piece of engineering, whereas the 773ER has all the aesthetics of a bread van. It's just ugly. It is one aircraft I have never liked the look of.

I second your opinion.

Moe

Hmm, I think it's the other way around: the 78K is too long (kind of DC 8-63-ish) and it's so short-legged. I prefer the 77W.

I don't see it that way at all - I thought that would have been my impression but seeing it in real life, it's not overly long-looking to me