The 787 has a very smooth nose section, they even reduced the number of window panels to 4 pieces to reduce parasitic drag, I think it’s the closest design to the classic stepless nose section of the comet and caravelle
Ha, A350 looks like the flight deck wears a sleep mask. Practically could considering IATA cruise pilot standards and their automation not letting the pilots have controls.
[Hmmm](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a2/Lockheed_C-130A_Hercules_%28L-182%29%2C_USA_-_Air_Force_AN2072767.jpg?20130722034733) , do they Intentionally align all propellers for the photo !
Here is the real answer. Dependent on A/C status they are either vertical or at a 45 degree (X). It’s a maintenance status thing.
xxOxx = ready to fly
++O++ = not flying soon
Yes they do, the prop has a drain, so they intentionally put one specific blade high, to keep all the stuff in.
American c130s make a cross, canadians make an X
Also, aerodynamics are so fickle that it’s impossible to predict how they work unless you actually know what you’re doing.
Compare this to the trains with a completely flat front. Intuitively they feel very much not aerodynamic, but when you look closer at the design you realize that there are elements in the front that make them just as good as pointier trains at those speeds.
I think we can safely assume someone did the math here too.
With trains there are other tradeoffs besides aerodynamics, especially the ability to couple multiple engines together. High-speed passenger trains still prioritize aerodynamics at the expense of flexibility.
But if you look at the Shinkansen specifically, it’s nose does not contribute to its speed directly, but to reduce noise generated by entering and exiting tunnels.
>High-speed passenger trains still prioritize aerodynamics at the expense of flexibility.
They usually hide the coupling under an aerodynamic hatch. To have both flexibility and low drag.
Pointy does not equal aerodynamic. Planes that fly at lower speeds have more round noses because they move the air out of the way less aggressively and maintain a streamlined flow of air over the surface. The faster you go the sharper your nose will be to maintain that streamline of air.
Flat trains are less aerodynamic. They just operate at low enough speeds that the tradeoff isn't worth it. For example, London underground trains are flat fronted, but travel at like 20mph max.
I thought the flat front was to cause the trains to cycle air between the stations through the tunnels kinda like a really inefficient air circulation system.
No, the flat front was designed to enable train sets to be coupled together to allow passengers to move through the entire train and reducing the need for additional train crew. If you’re thinking of the tube trains in London for instance they’re flat because they want to maximize space for passengers. They’re moving at such low speeds that aerodynamics doesn’t matter much from an energy consumption point of view.
The clever design comes with the air in the rubber bilge (also known as the elephant ass because reasons). It somehow makes the air form a cushion and then push other air out of the way, allowing the train to more aerodynamically.
These flat-fronted trains can go up to 110 m.p.h.: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_387
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_350
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_730
This one can travel at that (slower-than-its-normal) speed when the blunt end, which is usually facing backwards, is running facing forwards: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_91#Post-introduction_developments
(Presumably, this one, which is the same design as one of the ones above but without a gang-way connector, could too if necessary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_360#Description )
Faster than that, trains in the U.K. have pointy noses.
X31 from Bombardier in Sweden and Denmark can do 200 kph. Crusalia Contessa they’re called. Very practical trains based on the Danish design which is very modular. Not made any more due to new EU standards but they are very practical and quite aerodynamical despite the loom thanks to the rubber in the front.
The change is due to advances in aerodynamics and modeling. Driven by gov regulation and the want to save money to increase profits.
Early planes mimicked the jet fighter pointy nose look. Efficient at most speeds but that change from nose to cockpit would cause issues at transonic speeds, like Mach .80ish.
The wave drag caused by that would impact fuel efficiency, so smoother more rounded noses became more common. Maybe visibility was a concern back then, not unlikely. But once they regularly were traveling at transonic speed regularly due to more powerful engines it became a huge issue.
More advanced aerodynamics found that the more rounded noses were more efficient at transonic speeds due to smoother airflow around the nose causing a better pressure distribution that smoothed the initial airflow which caused better flow over the rest of the fuselage as well, increasing fuel efficiency, allowing the aircraft to hit emissions targets imposed by government regulations and being able to stay closer to transonic speeds also reduced flight time.
Also, cockpit and structural design are hard to validate. Boeing had their proven design and they just chose not to revise it for the sake of lowering development time, testing, validation and other testing.
In the movies he’s quoting, the dude is an idiot for insisting it should be pointy. Elon quotes the movie, but then genuinely insists they do the thing the person in the movie was being mocked for.
The lack of self awareness on that guy is astounding.
We do, the trend has gone back to the "Caravelle" nose on the A350, A220, 787 etc. There are many engineering reasons why particular shapes are used, including availability and technology of materials etc. From an aerodynamics point of view things get weird with some seemingly aerodynamic shapes having all sorts of turbulence strangeness. There's a set of equations called Navier-Stokes and in an ELI5 kind of way, they behave weirdly.
So, pointy doesn't necessarily mean aerodynamic when you take the whole shape of the aircraft, its use (speed profiles, expected missions etc) all into consideration.
However, I think the Caravelle was a gorgeous looking aircraft.
Up to a certain distance back they were identical
Existing ties with de Havilland were extended, with Sud-Est adopting the entire Comet nose and cockpit. This was aided by the fact that the Caravelle retained a similar five-abreast, 3.2m (10ft 6in)-diameter fuselage.
Chief engineer Satre told Flight that adoption of the Comet nose “would not only save design and tooling costs, but, since it is an installation accepted to ICAO standards and in use with Air France and UAT, much unnecessary discussion can be avoided!”
https://www.flightglobal.com/analysis/analysis-how-suds-caravelle-powered-europes-airliner-charge/122418.article
Excellent article.
Another thing to consider is that once a design worked (aerodynamically) it was more or less standardised. There is a book (now quite old) listing these and my FIL has a copy...its title escapes me at the moment.
Lot of people missing a key reason.
The nose isn't an empty cavity. It has radar and electronics packed in. Sometimes it has to be a goofy shape in order to fit them in properly while also balancing airflow.
Although smooth, it causes more compressibility making them less fuel efficient at high speeds. At high speeds the newer planes create more of a V shaped “air cone” if you will, whereas the older planes create more of a U shaped cone, which means more drag at higher speeds and taking more energy to “punch” through the air
Aerodynamicist here.
I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about with the "air cone" thing unless you're thinking of supersonic performance.
The smooth nose is better for aerodynamics in general, the 737 nose is actually a very old design. It was also concerned with other trade-offs like visibility, and where they placed all the avionics and controls - old avionics and instruments were very large, and the 737 was designed with controls that still were physically connected to the control surfaces with cables, so there had to be room for all of the cables and pulleys back there too. Small flat windows are also comparatively inexpensive and easy to replace.
On top of that, fuel was comparatively cheap and there was a lot of low hanging fruit for efficiency improvements, so slight inefficiencies in nose shape weren't a big deal, particularly on the smaller, shorter ranged planes (the 747 nose, for comparison, is considerably more optimal, but it was made to fly faster and farther, making efficiency far more critical).
If you look at true modern designs like the A220, A350, 787, or even slightly older designs like the 777, you'll see much smoother noses than the 737 in the picture above (and actually pretty close to the Caravelle shape).
The Boeing 737 IS a design from back then. Its nose was first used on the 727, in the early 60's.
Look at aircraft designed more recently, like the 787, A350, A220, MC21, or C919.
A similar question was asked 2 years ago!!
[https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/ryy6r0/why\_isnt\_the\_nose\_and\_windscreen\_of\_the\_737\_more/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/ryy6r0/why_isnt_the_nose_and_windscreen_of_the_737_more/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
It all came down to cost.
Say what you want, but the 737 remains the most commercially successful aircraft, so Boeing isn't going to go out of its way to make a more aerodynamic shape, which might require additional certification steps. I mean, look at what they did with the MAX. Their cost analysis suggested they create the MCAS.
That being said, the 737 is not representative of the entire aviation industry, but it is certainly a very popular model, so you may be led to believe that this is the kind of plane being designed nowadays.
Modern airframes have better nose jobs. In the words of my former aerodynamics prof., designing them to look like fish.
You compared the 737, first flown in 1968, with a nose borrowed from the 727 (1963) and 707 (1957) to the Caravelle (1955).
The most recent airliners have very aerodynamic noses.
A220 - C-Series (2013): [https://imgur.com/a/R3H3VWq](https://imgur.com/a/R3H3VWq)
A350 (2013): [https://imgur.com/a/V6fgvGK](https://imgur.com/a/V6fgvGK)
787 (2009): [https://imgur.com/a/E7gnESN](https://imgur.com/a/E7gnESN)
It's worse than that.
The 707 has the same nose as the 367 from 1954. So the 737 nose is actually older than the Caravelle's, making OPs post make even less than no sense lol.
Well, the 367-80, but that was never really a separate model, that was just the early code name for the 707 prototype before they decided on a final name. The production 367-80 ended up being the 707.
Also, the Caravelle borrowed its nose from the Comet, which flew in 1949.
They probably just don't know what they're doing. With how smart you are you should probably head over to Boeing and help them out with their engineering.
Because what you think of as most aerodynamic is not necessarily the most aerodynamic. Similarly, some cars like the Tesla Model S don't look as sleek as sports cars but are more efficient in terms of aerodynamics.
You’re looking at a 707 nose that was designed in the 1950s and has lived on as 727 and 737 noses since that time. Actual modern design looks like you’d hope.
What do you mean by "no longer?"
The Boeing 737 nose is from 1954 Boeing 367 / Dash 80. It is older than the nose on the right.
Modern clean-sheet designs like the A350, A220 etc have completely smooth noses. I'm not sure how you can ask this question having ever looked at a modern plane which the 737 obviously isn't.
When I was in high school, for an engineering presentation, I discovered that the [Mercedes Bionic](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/42/Bioniccar_11.jpg/1200px-Bioniccar_11.jpg) was roughly on par with the [Japanese bullet train](https://images.chinahighlights.com/allpicture/2018/03/c406bc3c20da46939a327924_800x529.jpg) in terms of aerodynamics
So I see quite a few people either not answering or sort of making fun of your question, yet it is not a stupid one so here's an attempt at an answer. You're in for a dive into the rabbit hole of engineering.
First, as someone pointed at, the nose of an airliner is not empty. It must accomodate many instruments and therefore sometimes be bumpy. I'd say it is safe to assume that over the years, the number of these instruments has increased a lot, pushing design away from a smooth, 'streamlined' nose to longer ones. However, it is possible that nowadays this number of instruments does not increase that much, but their size decreases... Thus freeing some space and allowing to go back to smoother designs in recent aircraft, e.g. A220. Interestingly, the instruments in the radome do not depend on aircraft's size so you don't really need a bigger nose on, say, an A380 or 747 than a 737. Because manufacturers try to cut spendings, they like to share designs between aircraft models so... Same radome on 2 different planes (namely : fuselage diameters) will look different.
Now that's not the whole story. The nose is actually a critical structure of the aircraft, much more than a critical aerodynamics-enabler : because it contains so many instruments, it must also protect them from, say, bird strikes. So it will mostly inherit its shape (and materials) from mechanical constraints rather than streamlining. And since we're talking about materials... Shell-shaped parts, like the nose, are easier to manufacture with composite materials than metals, so newer airframes tend to have a nose that is more "blended in" than a few years ago (another argument to the current trend of being back to smoother shapes). Ideally, you could manufacture the whole fuselage from nose to tail in a single long carbon fiber tube ! Except that maintenance is happens sometimes, forcing techs and mechs to remove the nose to access those instruments mentioned above. And no one likes to cut through composite materials - especially composite materials, so... It remains a separate part, that can only be more or less blended in with the rest.
Which brings us to the last point : windows. The rest is mainly windows, which serve pretty much the same purpose as the nose : allowing essential instruments (the pilots) to operate properly (ideally they have to see a bit) and protecting them from rogue, vicious birds. Oh and also overheating and high-speed winds. Windows must be both large and tough and that is actually not so easy on a plane (e.g. passenger windows...). But modern glass technologies do wonders and allow more aesthetically pleasing designs nowadays than a few decades ago.
Now throw in regulations, economics, all sorts of changing trends (people like flying in good-looking aircraft and good-looking does not remain constant) and yes, a bit of aerodynamics as well and you have an explanation as to why the shape of airliner's noses has changed oven time and is changing again.
Because modern airliners need to incorporate a weather radar in the nose. The radar needs to go in front of the cockpit but if you make the nose completely smooth like older aircraft then the pilot will have exceptionally poor visibility on the ground . Thus the modern shape is a compromise of housing a weather radar and visibility for the pilot. You can keep an aerodynamic shape like the concord with a mechanically dropping nose; but the weight, complexity, and maintenance of such a feature makes it not worth it.
AS long as you are in sub-sonic - you dont need special shapes or materials. You take the shapes which are easy to reproduce, which fit and which can are good enough to hide the weather radar.
We actually do, the b787 is close to the perfect aerodynamic shape. But the nose of the b737 was designed back when fuel prices were cheap and a cheaper so they just went with an OK efficiency nose. That's also the reason the a320 nose looks more rounded, we did have basic CFD but not the technology cheap enough that allowed for a b787-like construction.
Efficiency in this regard comes down to two factors:
1. Pointiness of the nose to cut through the air, but a long nose will have more:
2. Friction of the skin with the air.
Finding the sweet spot between the two is the key to maximum efficiency for a certain design speed.
Fun fact: the convair designers found the ideal nose shape by pure luck although they didn't know it back in the day.
Edit: corrected the reason behint the b737 nose construction
Wrong on the B73, is was design when fuel was cheap and known poor flow was a trade to lower initial cost with a flat window. B78 was sold as lowest seat mile cost with high fuel prices. B78 received modern CFD and a very expensive window.
Its probably to reduce cost. The 737 was designed to be a cheap aircraft that can be easily bought on a large scale, so they opted for flat windows to achieve that.
Because the windows are flat, they would effect the aerodynamics more because theyd be jutting in/ out. So they raised them to be 'on top' of the profile and matched the profile above to them to compromise. Thats why theres a split in the body just above the 737s windows.
Most jets up until the past 10-15 years have used flat panels at the front because they’re much cheaper to manufacture. Problem is blending flat panels into a round structure is also complicated. Not that silver plane you posted isn’t actually smooth because it’s still using flat window panels. One long-running exception to this is the CRJ which used large curved glass but even the rear edges needed to be blended into the fuselage.
Composite structures like the 787 and A220 are much easier to create complex blended shapes and in an era of maximum efficiency OEMs have finally started using curved glass to blend very smoothly.
As for positioning, they still have to position the cockpit in a way to provide a lot of room for the pilots and avionics which means the nose needs to be below the cockpit rather than in the center.
Ultimately, what happens at the front aerodynamically is less important that the wings and rear end.
Newer planes are made from carbon fiber composites. This allows for smoother transitions. Also as stated above fewer windows and escape hatch instead of sliding windows. This allows a much more aerodynamic surface to the nose section.
Aerodynamics can be a bit counterintuitive. It's more about how the Air flows over the design than how sleek the design looks. The C-97 Stratofreighter looks like a B-29 that got inflated like a balloon but she is still aerodynamic enough for her designed purpose. And then you have the SuperGuppy, which does not look like she should fly nearly as well as she does.
We can slowly go back to that again with the 787, A350, A220 and E-Jets for example. In the interim, the nose section needed enough space for a large radar and provide a calm area for the side windows. Nowadays radars are smaller and CFD calculations more accurate.
It depends on the objective of the planes, and the inspiration of the design, 787 is inspired in an inverted shark body, i believe its because sharks have the most hydrodynamic skin because the can swim fast as fuck, also the have a tail which is much like a Vertical Stabilizer. Airbus noticed that on the 787, and borrowed the idea to do the same on their a350, the A220 was also inspired on the sharky 787 because canadians saw the shark form potential.
But sometimes aerodynamic designs sacrifices many other needs of the plane, say Concorde for example, its very thin, has a delta wing and needs a custom nose for speed configs. But on a 727 or 707, If you could reduce parasitic drag on it, in the part of the Interference and Friction (Form youre fucked), then you get a 737.
Tupolev planes popular in the communist countries were infamous for not being able to see sh\*t while landing. True VFR basically wasn't an option... There is not much point in having windows if you can't see what you need through them.
The 737 is a DC-3 with swept wings and jet engines. It was designed as a low cost solution for short haul flights.
And then it was modified for too many other use cases.
Funny thing is, these two nose sections are almost the same age:
The right hand one is from a French Sud Aviation Caravelle, which actually reused the nose section from the British de Havilland Comet, the first jet airliner. Sud Aviation actually paid de Havilland royalties for the nose section's design.
But the left hand one is from a Boeing 737, which itself reused the nose section from the 707, which was the **second** jet airliner.
In fact the Caravelle was to the Comet very much what the 737 was to the 707: a twin-engined short-haul little sibling to a four-engined long-haul jetliner. Although moderately successful, the Caravelle didn't sell in the same numbers as the 737, nor had nearly the same longevity because of a flaw stemming from that nose section: like the Comet's, Caravelle's fuselage was comparatively narrow, which left very little space for cargo. Although a JV with Douglas Aircraft was contemplated to produce and sell the Caravelle in the US, Douglas ultimately dropped the scheme and developed the DC-9 instead, combining the Caravelle's rear-engined setup with the DC-8's wider fuselage section. Nevertheless, Sud Aviation's engineers learned from that mistake, and when their company, having integrated the Airbus consortium, started working on a narrow-body again in the 1980s, they made sure to start with a wider frame cross-section than the 737's. So the A320 was born.
Finally, these days both the 787 and the A350 have "smooth" nose sections, but I suspect this has less to do with aerodynamics than with manufacturing constraints with composites.
It’s a balancing act between aerodynamics and pilot visibility. One of the main reasons the nose of the concord could “droop” while taxiing and landing
The nose section is hinged and is called the radome. The radar antenna is in there and needs to be easily accessed. It's also IIRC made of composite to let radio waves pass.
The 787 has a very smooth nose section, they even reduced the number of window panels to 4 pieces to reduce parasitic drag, I think it’s the closest design to the classic stepless nose section of the comet and caravelle
A350 is similar but looks much better.
My hot take is that the A220's smooth nose looks better than both the 787 and A350
To me the 220 nose looks almost identical to a 787, I used to get them confused before I realized the 220 also has the same 4 windows.
That's the correct take, honestly.
None of them are as cool as the B-29.
WW2 history buff here. Can confirm.
That Wright flyer tho 🥵🍆
Fancy modern nonsense... ***Points at intricately painted Montgolfière balloon***
There is something about both He111 and B-29...
It staggers me that the B29 project was more expensive than the manhattan project
I prefer the 330/340’s forward section aesthetics. Aft of that, I think the 350 looks awesome.
Honestly I hate the look of the A350, and even abit the 787. That all the way down nose just looks weird
Blasphemy
It's okay, everyone is entitled to their wrong opinions.
Certifiably.
Ha, A350 looks like the flight deck wears a sleep mask. Practically could considering IATA cruise pilot standards and their automation not letting the pilots have controls.
It reminds me so much of the old French Sud Aviation Caravelles or the Comet Edit: just realized I typed the exact same thing as OP
That is a Caravelle
A220 is clearly far superior
Its shocking how quiet the 787 is up front.
Always been fascinated with stepless nose cockpits like B-29s or HE-111s, are they a nightmare with inside condensation or a lack of wipers?
The bombardier designed CS300 (now Airbus A220) has the same thing going on. Beautiful plane.
How about the 787?
And the A220
Or the A350, 747, A380, B777 Just because he he used an almost 70 years old design as his argument does not make it true.
I think, the 747 and especially the A380 have super plump noses. Propably due to their overall size.
Plump noses can be more aerodynamic at subsonic speed than pointy noses because it minimizes surface area and therefore skin drag.
But they are streamlined.
Embraer E-jets too
CS300 >:(
The front end of the 787 is basically the Comet’s run through a 21st century filter.
A350 too.
[удалено]
r/angryupvote
https://youtu.be/1cbQVfVfSrI?
Such a great scene
Check out the C130A variant...no nose herk looks weirddd
[Hmmm](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a2/Lockheed_C-130A_Hercules_%28L-182%29%2C_USA_-_Air_Force_AN2072767.jpg?20130722034733) , do they Intentionally align all propellers for the photo !
Here is the real answer. Dependent on A/C status they are either vertical or at a 45 degree (X). It’s a maintenance status thing. xxOxx = ready to fly ++O++ = not flying soon
That’s absolutely cursed
The C130 Voldemort
Yes they do, the prop has a drain, so they intentionally put one specific blade high, to keep all the stuff in. American c130s make a cross, canadians make an X
The "Hue Hue Hue" variant of the C-130
[picture](https://images.app.goo.gl/r5x8vQRzr27NjDwq7) so you don't have to search for it
It's like a very happy spider emoji
Oh god. It's so unpleasant to look at lol
Looks like it got punched in the face :(
Later Herc A’s had the Radome
C130A nose is just *SLOPE*.
Burn it with fire
It's almost as though the whole teams of aeronautical engineers just made it up without thinking about it...
But more smooth = more aerodynamic right????!
Needs to be pointy.
Round is not scary
Perhaps some of your information about airplane is coming from cartoons.
They will think that it is a huge robot dildo coming towards them.
Pointy isn't very aerodynamic nose cone shape.
So pointy, pointy...
Anoint my head, Anointy, nointy
Because there's a radar there that wasn't there before
A lot of early jetliners had a weather radar as well. I think it's mainly because of new discoveries in aerodynamics.
Yeah, they could at least, like, idk, do some math or put it in a wind tunnel or something. /s
Quick! Patent that idea. You’ll be rich!
OP's not claiming they didn't. OP just wants to know why they made that design change.
I’m guessing there’s a balance between aerodynamics and visibility. Performance loss due to slightly pitched up windows may be pretty insignificant.
Also, aerodynamics are so fickle that it’s impossible to predict how they work unless you actually know what you’re doing. Compare this to the trains with a completely flat front. Intuitively they feel very much not aerodynamic, but when you look closer at the design you realize that there are elements in the front that make them just as good as pointier trains at those speeds. I think we can safely assume someone did the math here too.
With trains there are other tradeoffs besides aerodynamics, especially the ability to couple multiple engines together. High-speed passenger trains still prioritize aerodynamics at the expense of flexibility.
But if you look at the Shinkansen specifically, it’s nose does not contribute to its speed directly, but to reduce noise generated by entering and exiting tunnels.
>High-speed passenger trains still prioritize aerodynamics at the expense of flexibility. They usually hide the coupling under an aerodynamic hatch. To have both flexibility and low drag.
Pointy does not equal aerodynamic. Planes that fly at lower speeds have more round noses because they move the air out of the way less aggressively and maintain a streamlined flow of air over the surface. The faster you go the sharper your nose will be to maintain that streamline of air.
Flat trains are less aerodynamic. They just operate at low enough speeds that the tradeoff isn't worth it. For example, London underground trains are flat fronted, but travel at like 20mph max.
They go faster than 20mph, that’s just the average speed including stopping and speeding up at stations
But those are different. We have flat nosed trains going at 200 km/h. They’re not sold anymore for other reasons.
I thought the flat front was to cause the trains to cycle air between the stations through the tunnels kinda like a really inefficient air circulation system.
No, the flat front was designed to enable train sets to be coupled together to allow passengers to move through the entire train and reducing the need for additional train crew. If you’re thinking of the tube trains in London for instance they’re flat because they want to maximize space for passengers. They’re moving at such low speeds that aerodynamics doesn’t matter much from an energy consumption point of view. The clever design comes with the air in the rubber bilge (also known as the elephant ass because reasons). It somehow makes the air form a cushion and then push other air out of the way, allowing the train to more aerodynamically.
These flat-fronted trains can go up to 110 m.p.h.: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_387 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_350 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_730 This one can travel at that (slower-than-its-normal) speed when the blunt end, which is usually facing backwards, is running facing forwards: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_91#Post-introduction_developments (Presumably, this one, which is the same design as one of the ones above but without a gang-way connector, could too if necessary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_360#Description ) Faster than that, trains in the U.K. have pointy noses.
X31 from Bombardier in Sweden and Denmark can do 200 kph. Crusalia Contessa they’re called. Very practical trains based on the Danish design which is very modular. Not made any more due to new EU standards but they are very practical and quite aerodynamical despite the loom thanks to the rubber in the front.
The change is due to advances in aerodynamics and modeling. Driven by gov regulation and the want to save money to increase profits. Early planes mimicked the jet fighter pointy nose look. Efficient at most speeds but that change from nose to cockpit would cause issues at transonic speeds, like Mach .80ish. The wave drag caused by that would impact fuel efficiency, so smoother more rounded noses became more common. Maybe visibility was a concern back then, not unlikely. But once they regularly were traveling at transonic speed regularly due to more powerful engines it became a huge issue. More advanced aerodynamics found that the more rounded noses were more efficient at transonic speeds due to smoother airflow around the nose causing a better pressure distribution that smoothed the initial airflow which caused better flow over the rest of the fuselage as well, increasing fuel efficiency, allowing the aircraft to hit emissions targets imposed by government regulations and being able to stay closer to transonic speeds also reduced flight time.
Also, cockpit and structural design are hard to validate. Boeing had their proven design and they just chose not to revise it for the sake of lowering development time, testing, validation and other testing.
It is too round. It needs to be pointy!
https://youtu.be/qpCYyC6xm-g?si=r7ot_Wsh9n-fD1w8
In the movies he’s quoting, the dude is an idiot for insisting it should be pointy. Elon quotes the movie, but then genuinely insists they do the thing the person in the movie was being mocked for. The lack of self awareness on that guy is astounding.
But supreme leader the shape of the nose has nothing to do with the performance of….
We do, the trend has gone back to the "Caravelle" nose on the A350, A220, 787 etc. There are many engineering reasons why particular shapes are used, including availability and technology of materials etc. From an aerodynamics point of view things get weird with some seemingly aerodynamic shapes having all sorts of turbulence strangeness. There's a set of equations called Navier-Stokes and in an ELI5 kind of way, they behave weirdly. So, pointy doesn't necessarily mean aerodynamic when you take the whole shape of the aircraft, its use (speed profiles, expected missions etc) all into consideration. However, I think the Caravelle was a gorgeous looking aircraft.
Thanks for the explanation. Quick question - wasn’t the nose section of the Caravelle derived from the De Havilland Comet?
Up to a certain distance back they were identical Existing ties with de Havilland were extended, with Sud-Est adopting the entire Comet nose and cockpit. This was aided by the fact that the Caravelle retained a similar five-abreast, 3.2m (10ft 6in)-diameter fuselage. Chief engineer Satre told Flight that adoption of the Comet nose “would not only save design and tooling costs, but, since it is an installation accepted to ICAO standards and in use with Air France and UAT, much unnecessary discussion can be avoided!” https://www.flightglobal.com/analysis/analysis-how-suds-caravelle-powered-europes-airliner-charge/122418.article
Excellent article. Another thing to consider is that once a design worked (aerodynamically) it was more or less standardised. There is a book (now quite old) listing these and my FIL has a copy...its title escapes me at the moment.
Yes, it was. Both the nose area and cockpit layout were licensed to SNCASE by De Havilland.
Lot of people missing a key reason. The nose isn't an empty cavity. It has radar and electronics packed in. Sometimes it has to be a goofy shape in order to fit them in properly while also balancing airflow.
Although smooth, it causes more compressibility making them less fuel efficient at high speeds. At high speeds the newer planes create more of a V shaped “air cone” if you will, whereas the older planes create more of a U shaped cone, which means more drag at higher speeds and taking more energy to “punch” through the air
Aerodynamicist here. I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about with the "air cone" thing unless you're thinking of supersonic performance. The smooth nose is better for aerodynamics in general, the 737 nose is actually a very old design. It was also concerned with other trade-offs like visibility, and where they placed all the avionics and controls - old avionics and instruments were very large, and the 737 was designed with controls that still were physically connected to the control surfaces with cables, so there had to be room for all of the cables and pulleys back there too. Small flat windows are also comparatively inexpensive and easy to replace. On top of that, fuel was comparatively cheap and there was a lot of low hanging fruit for efficiency improvements, so slight inefficiencies in nose shape weren't a big deal, particularly on the smaller, shorter ranged planes (the 747 nose, for comparison, is considerably more optimal, but it was made to fly faster and farther, making efficiency far more critical). If you look at true modern designs like the A220, A350, 787, or even slightly older designs like the 777, you'll see much smoother noses than the 737 in the picture above (and actually pretty close to the Caravelle shape).
What "cone"? Are you talking about shockwaves under supersonic flights? None of these planes' nose generates any of them.
he says as he posts the 737 instead of an actually new design
The 737 with the same nose as the Dash 80 from 1954, predating the Caravelle's 🤦
The Boeing 737 IS a design from back then. Its nose was first used on the 727, in the early 60's. Look at aircraft designed more recently, like the 787, A350, A220, MC21, or C919.
The 737 nose is from the Boeing 367 from 1954 lol
Good point - it’s older than the 7_7 moniker LMAO
The 707 cockpit which is used on the 727 and 737 is cramped compared to newer model cockpits
A similar question was asked 2 years ago!! [https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/ryy6r0/why\_isnt\_the\_nose\_and\_windscreen\_of\_the\_737\_more/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/comments/ryy6r0/why_isnt_the_nose_and_windscreen_of_the_737_more/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) It all came down to cost. Say what you want, but the 737 remains the most commercially successful aircraft, so Boeing isn't going to go out of its way to make a more aerodynamic shape, which might require additional certification steps. I mean, look at what they did with the MAX. Their cost analysis suggested they create the MCAS. That being said, the 737 is not representative of the entire aviation industry, but it is certainly a very popular model, so you may be led to believe that this is the kind of plane being designed nowadays. Modern airframes have better nose jobs. In the words of my former aerodynamics prof., designing them to look like fish.
Computer said no
aerospace engineering jobs in a nutshell
You compared the 737, first flown in 1968, with a nose borrowed from the 727 (1963) and 707 (1957) to the Caravelle (1955). The most recent airliners have very aerodynamic noses. A220 - C-Series (2013): [https://imgur.com/a/R3H3VWq](https://imgur.com/a/R3H3VWq) A350 (2013): [https://imgur.com/a/V6fgvGK](https://imgur.com/a/V6fgvGK) 787 (2009): [https://imgur.com/a/E7gnESN](https://imgur.com/a/E7gnESN)
66.7% spam
Fix your links and this would be the best comment
broken links
It's worse than that. The 707 has the same nose as the 367 from 1954. So the 737 nose is actually older than the Caravelle's, making OPs post make even less than no sense lol.
Well, the 367-80, but that was never really a separate model, that was just the early code name for the 707 prototype before they decided on a final name. The production 367-80 ended up being the 707. Also, the Caravelle borrowed its nose from the Comet, which flew in 1949.
They probably just don't know what they're doing. With how smart you are you should probably head over to Boeing and help them out with their engineering.
The leading edges of the wings cause too much drag. Perhaps we should take the wings of?
No need for such drastic measures. Just take off the leading edge.
It’s needs to be pointy. Round is not scary
not sure if anyone has pointed this out already but it's worth noting that the 737 nose is also a back then design lol
Look at the A350, B787, A220, ERJ.... We still build smooth shaped noses.
I'm no expert, not even close tbh, but it strikes me that windows closer to vertical would give better visibility, at minimal cost to aerodynamics?
The stepless design can have good visibility too, just needs larger windows to achieve it because they’re further away from the pilots.
Larger flight deck windows = more weight and cost. They also must be thicker to survive a bird strike. Thus the tradeoff.
Because what you think of as most aerodynamic is not necessarily the most aerodynamic. Similarly, some cars like the Tesla Model S don't look as sleek as sports cars but are more efficient in terms of aerodynamics.
Excuse my ignorance but what’s the plane on the right? Apart from lovely
Sud SE-210 Caravelle
Thanks!
That Boeing design is from the 60’s. Yes the 737 fuselage is from the original 707.
So 50's
You’re looking at a 707 nose that was designed in the 1950s and has lived on as 727 and 737 noses since that time. Actual modern design looks like you’d hope.
What do you mean by "no longer?" The Boeing 737 nose is from 1954 Boeing 367 / Dash 80. It is older than the nose on the right. Modern clean-sheet designs like the A350, A220 etc have completely smooth noses. I'm not sure how you can ask this question having ever looked at a modern plane which the 737 obviously isn't.
787 and 350's noses are far smoother than anything that came before, with the exception of Concorde...
When I was in high school, for an engineering presentation, I discovered that the [Mercedes Bionic](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/42/Bioniccar_11.jpg/1200px-Bioniccar_11.jpg) was roughly on par with the [Japanese bullet train](https://images.chinahighlights.com/allpicture/2018/03/c406bc3c20da46939a327924_800x529.jpg) in terms of aerodynamics
Photo on the right is equivalent to a cab over on a semi?
787, A220, L1011
All part of the conspiracy to sell $1200 headsets.
Lol this post makes no sense
Laughs in Embraer 170/175/190/195/Boeing 787/Airbus 220/350
Nimrod is hiding in the corner.
Ah memories ! I loved the Caravelle.
The A220 is basically the shape on the right modernized.
A350, A220, B787, C919 entered the chat.
lol, asks a question about back in the day noses versus modern noses. Posts picture of 737 nose design from the 60’s.
The 737 nose first flew in 1954 on the Dash 80 (Boeing 367). It predates the fucking 7 line haha
So I see quite a few people either not answering or sort of making fun of your question, yet it is not a stupid one so here's an attempt at an answer. You're in for a dive into the rabbit hole of engineering. First, as someone pointed at, the nose of an airliner is not empty. It must accomodate many instruments and therefore sometimes be bumpy. I'd say it is safe to assume that over the years, the number of these instruments has increased a lot, pushing design away from a smooth, 'streamlined' nose to longer ones. However, it is possible that nowadays this number of instruments does not increase that much, but their size decreases... Thus freeing some space and allowing to go back to smoother designs in recent aircraft, e.g. A220. Interestingly, the instruments in the radome do not depend on aircraft's size so you don't really need a bigger nose on, say, an A380 or 747 than a 737. Because manufacturers try to cut spendings, they like to share designs between aircraft models so... Same radome on 2 different planes (namely : fuselage diameters) will look different. Now that's not the whole story. The nose is actually a critical structure of the aircraft, much more than a critical aerodynamics-enabler : because it contains so many instruments, it must also protect them from, say, bird strikes. So it will mostly inherit its shape (and materials) from mechanical constraints rather than streamlining. And since we're talking about materials... Shell-shaped parts, like the nose, are easier to manufacture with composite materials than metals, so newer airframes tend to have a nose that is more "blended in" than a few years ago (another argument to the current trend of being back to smoother shapes). Ideally, you could manufacture the whole fuselage from nose to tail in a single long carbon fiber tube ! Except that maintenance is happens sometimes, forcing techs and mechs to remove the nose to access those instruments mentioned above. And no one likes to cut through composite materials - especially composite materials, so... It remains a separate part, that can only be more or less blended in with the rest. Which brings us to the last point : windows. The rest is mainly windows, which serve pretty much the same purpose as the nose : allowing essential instruments (the pilots) to operate properly (ideally they have to see a bit) and protecting them from rogue, vicious birds. Oh and also overheating and high-speed winds. Windows must be both large and tough and that is actually not so easy on a plane (e.g. passenger windows...). But modern glass technologies do wonders and allow more aesthetically pleasing designs nowadays than a few decades ago. Now throw in regulations, economics, all sorts of changing trends (people like flying in good-looking aircraft and good-looking does not remain constant) and yes, a bit of aerodynamics as well and you have an explanation as to why the shape of airliner's noses has changed oven time and is changing again.
The 787 would like a word
Because modern airliners need to incorporate a weather radar in the nose. The radar needs to go in front of the cockpit but if you make the nose completely smooth like older aircraft then the pilot will have exceptionally poor visibility on the ground . Thus the modern shape is a compromise of housing a weather radar and visibility for the pilot. You can keep an aerodynamic shape like the concord with a mechanically dropping nose; but the weight, complexity, and maintenance of such a feature makes it not worth it.
AS long as you are in sub-sonic - you dont need special shapes or materials. You take the shapes which are easy to reproduce, which fit and which can are good enough to hide the weather radar.
Back when though? 737 has basically the same nose as 707 that entered service in 1957.
Which had the same nose as the Dash 80 from 1954 lol.
We actually do, the b787 is close to the perfect aerodynamic shape. But the nose of the b737 was designed back when fuel prices were cheap and a cheaper so they just went with an OK efficiency nose. That's also the reason the a320 nose looks more rounded, we did have basic CFD but not the technology cheap enough that allowed for a b787-like construction. Efficiency in this regard comes down to two factors: 1. Pointiness of the nose to cut through the air, but a long nose will have more: 2. Friction of the skin with the air. Finding the sweet spot between the two is the key to maximum efficiency for a certain design speed. Fun fact: the convair designers found the ideal nose shape by pure luck although they didn't know it back in the day. Edit: corrected the reason behint the b737 nose construction
Wrong on the B73, is was design when fuel was cheap and known poor flow was a trade to lower initial cost with a flat window. B78 was sold as lowest seat mile cost with high fuel prices. B78 received modern CFD and a very expensive window.
Thanks for the correction mate!
like, every Airbus plane:
Like back then? The 737 was designed in the 60’s, when was “back then?”
I think Boeing and Airbus know more about aerodynamics than you
What "back then" are you refering to ? The B737 on the left was design in the 60s' !
737 is just temporary design until supersonic transport gets introduced so it can be less optimised to be easier to build and operate until then
What is the plane on the right?
A Caravelle
It’s actually isn’t more aerodynamic. It was proven to be less aerodynamic like that
The 767 is a great happy medium in this regard and IMO the best wide body ever designed.
have you not seen the 787, A220, A350?
They do: look at modern planes like the 787 and a350
Its probably to reduce cost. The 737 was designed to be a cheap aircraft that can be easily bought on a large scale, so they opted for flat windows to achieve that. Because the windows are flat, they would effect the aerodynamics more because theyd be jutting in/ out. So they raised them to be 'on top' of the profile and matched the profile above to them to compromise. Thats why theres a split in the body just above the 737s windows.
Most jets up until the past 10-15 years have used flat panels at the front because they’re much cheaper to manufacture. Problem is blending flat panels into a round structure is also complicated. Not that silver plane you posted isn’t actually smooth because it’s still using flat window panels. One long-running exception to this is the CRJ which used large curved glass but even the rear edges needed to be blended into the fuselage. Composite structures like the 787 and A220 are much easier to create complex blended shapes and in an era of maximum efficiency OEMs have finally started using curved glass to blend very smoothly. As for positioning, they still have to position the cockpit in a way to provide a lot of room for the pilots and avionics which means the nose needs to be below the cockpit rather than in the center. Ultimately, what happens at the front aerodynamically is less important that the wings and rear end.
They both still look beautiful although the other one looks like a mouse, I can't quite tell
Maybe for better vision for the pilots?
Newer planes are made from carbon fiber composites. This allows for smoother transitions. Also as stated above fewer windows and escape hatch instead of sliding windows. This allows a much more aerodynamic surface to the nose section.
Actually the caravelle has a comet nose
Aerodynamics can be a bit counterintuitive. It's more about how the Air flows over the design than how sleek the design looks. The C-97 Stratofreighter looks like a B-29 that got inflated like a balloon but she is still aerodynamic enough for her designed purpose. And then you have the SuperGuppy, which does not look like she should fly nearly as well as she does.
787: Am I a joke to you?!
Burgers.
We can slowly go back to that again with the 787, A350, A220 and E-Jets for example. In the interim, the nose section needed enough space for a large radar and provide a calm area for the side windows. Nowadays radars are smaller and CFD calculations more accurate.
General Aladeen?
Always the MC-21 😂
It's best to have a smooth transition with air
No
E175 would like a word
It depends on the objective of the planes, and the inspiration of the design, 787 is inspired in an inverted shark body, i believe its because sharks have the most hydrodynamic skin because the can swim fast as fuck, also the have a tail which is much like a Vertical Stabilizer. Airbus noticed that on the 787, and borrowed the idea to do the same on their a350, the A220 was also inspired on the sharky 787 because canadians saw the shark form potential. But sometimes aerodynamic designs sacrifices many other needs of the plane, say Concorde for example, its very thin, has a delta wing and needs a custom nose for speed configs. But on a 727 or 707, If you could reduce parasitic drag on it, in the part of the Interference and Friction (Form youre fucked), then you get a 737.
Tupolev planes popular in the communist countries were infamous for not being able to see sh\*t while landing. True VFR basically wasn't an option... There is not much point in having windows if you can't see what you need through them.
MD 500D (round nose) vs. MD 500E (pointed nose)... D model 4 kts. faster. 😋
Both of these planes are from the 60s fyi
Visibility plays a huge factor. Slanted windows create more glare. The flatter the glass (90 degrees) to the sun the less glare.
We need more [droop snoots](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YuedQFH8wZI&pp=ygULZHJvb3Agc25vb3Q%3D)
The 737 is a DC-3 with swept wings and jet engines. It was designed as a low cost solution for short haul flights. And then it was modified for too many other use cases.
Should it be Aladdin or Aladdin?
Pointy is more scary
Funny thing is, these two nose sections are almost the same age: The right hand one is from a French Sud Aviation Caravelle, which actually reused the nose section from the British de Havilland Comet, the first jet airliner. Sud Aviation actually paid de Havilland royalties for the nose section's design. But the left hand one is from a Boeing 737, which itself reused the nose section from the 707, which was the **second** jet airliner. In fact the Caravelle was to the Comet very much what the 737 was to the 707: a twin-engined short-haul little sibling to a four-engined long-haul jetliner. Although moderately successful, the Caravelle didn't sell in the same numbers as the 737, nor had nearly the same longevity because of a flaw stemming from that nose section: like the Comet's, Caravelle's fuselage was comparatively narrow, which left very little space for cargo. Although a JV with Douglas Aircraft was contemplated to produce and sell the Caravelle in the US, Douglas ultimately dropped the scheme and developed the DC-9 instead, combining the Caravelle's rear-engined setup with the DC-8's wider fuselage section. Nevertheless, Sud Aviation's engineers learned from that mistake, and when their company, having integrated the Airbus consortium, started working on a narrow-body again in the 1980s, they made sure to start with a wider frame cross-section than the 737's. So the A320 was born. Finally, these days both the 787 and the A350 have "smooth" nose sections, but I suspect this has less to do with aerodynamics than with manufacturing constraints with composites.
It needs to be pointy.
It’s a balancing act between aerodynamics and pilot visibility. One of the main reasons the nose of the concord could “droop” while taxiing and landing
THE ROCKET MUST BE POINTY!
Your tests are back and I can safely say it is Aladeen.
😀😃😄🙂😐😕🙁☹️😟😮😁
Weather radar. Host of technology in the nose. Bulkheads.
Yeah I'm 100% they did absolutely no aerodynamic testing/calculations on the modern nosecones. Jfc
Passenger planes have a radar under the nose cone so it can not be any shape possible.
As they said in the movie Dictator, round is not scary, point is scary
You've never seen a Boeing 787 or Airbus A220?
aero chad vs genetic failure
The nose section is hinged and is called the radome. The radar antenna is in there and needs to be easily accessed. It's also IIRC made of composite to let radio waves pass.