Aircraft Fashion

I wonder if anybody has thought of fashion in aircraft design. here are a few examples.
The PZL high gull wing monoplanes of the 30s.
twin engined fighters were in fashion in the late 30s.
low wing, single V engined fighters of WW2
nose intake jet fighters of the 50s
swing wings in the 70s
vtols during the cold war
canard deltas today

And the Next New Thing?

Maybe "Wing-in-Body"? Increases internal volume while decreasing drag.

Or , perhaps, Larger, general purpose UAV's; Eliminate the need for "pilot support systems" by eliminating the need for a pilot.

And lastly, my personal favorite!....Lighter-than-Air Vehicles (LAV's). Fly low and slow. Enjoy the view as only a bird could before. With high-speed communications much of our commercial travel is really superfluous, anyway; why not bring adventure and majesty back to air travel?

The Journey should be More Than Just a Destination!!

Originally posted by Forsazh
I wonder if anybody has thought of fashion in aircraft design. here are a few examples.
The PZL high gull wing monoplanes of the 30s.
twin engined fighters were in fashion in the late 30s.
low wing, single V engined fighters of WW2
nose intake jet fighters of the 50s
swing wings in the 70s
vtols during the cold war
canard deltas today

There are of course USAF exceptions.

*P-38 in WW2
*F-101, F-102, F-104, F-105 in the 50's
*F-15 in 70's
*No canards or deltas in the USAF today

yeah well... The planes are made to fly with not to look at...

Originally posted by NWguy83

Originally posted by Forsazh
I wonder if anybody has thought of fashion in aircraft design. here are a few examples.
twin engined fighters were in fashion in the late 30s.
low wing, single V engined fighters of WW2

There are of course USAF exceptions.

*P-38 in WW2

Huh? You lost me.

NWguy, what do you mean by Single V engines. I'm confused.

Its easy to see that there is a general train of reasons that defines almost every industrial product. these reasons usually consist of technical possibilities, changed conditions of use and, above all, need. For example the twin engined 30´s fighters followed the limitation in engine power and reliability versus the need for better performance.

The increased use of canards today are a result of improved computerized flight assistance, you easily get more maneuverability with them at the expense of flight stability.

So basically if any of the prevously mentioned 3 reasons change, you will get a new standard in aircraft design. Besides, the USAF isnt the only airforce that has exceptions to the rule, as well as it has some models that are designed exactly according to the "fashion" at that time.

Somone once remarked to me how British designs 'look very Russian'. I had never considered this before but its true if you look at aircraft from the 50's and 60's. Wing root mounted engines on larger aircraft, the Lightning and Sukhoi Fitter/MiG Faceplate (even more striking with the single engine P6 version of the Lightning which just looked like an Su-7 fitted with Lightning wings). Even the VC-10 and Il-62, as a pair are uniquely configured. The more UK designs you look at the more apparent it becomes. Why though?

Huh? You lost me.

NWguy, what do you mean by Single V engines. I'm confused.

I'm saying not all fighters during WW2 were single V engine.

[edit on 5-8-2005 by NWguy83]

In terms of aircraft fashion, I think about how companies have unique design themes, mainly because of the designers. Sir Sydney Camm from hawker and the gracefully designs of the Hunter and Harrier. Douglas aircraft designed by Ed Heinemann, such as the A-4, A3D, and Skystreak. Kelly Johnson and the U-2 and F-104. Andrei Tupolev and the Tu-16 and Tu-95. You go through the designers and you find particular styles they like. It's interesting.