#1 Edited by FrankCanada97 (4039 posts) -

The title of largest passenger jet went from the Boeing 747-400 to the Airbus A380. The A380 came into service in 2007 to much fanfare. But has anybody noticed how ugly it is? It certainly doesn't help that for some reason, they put the flight deck in the lower cabin. Compare the beauty and sleekness of the 747-400 to the bulky girth that is the A380. Let's put this into perspective:
 
Here is the A380:

And here is the 747-400:

Two similar angles showing the planes in landing configuration with full flaps and slats set. Which of these planes look better to you?
 
Oh, and for all you 747 fans, Boeing is currently developing a new 747 variant dubbed the 747-8. Named for its use of technology seen in the Boeing 787.
#2 Posted by Bucketdeth (8041 posts) -

As someone who is afraid of flying, I can tell you they both look horrible to me, but in looks I would say yeah the bottom one looks more like a sports plane and the top looks like the run of the mill big plane.

#3 Posted by Xeiphyer (5608 posts) -

The first one looks a lot sleeker, but sorta stubby-nosed.
 
The 747 is a classic though.

#4 Posted by Jimbo (9933 posts) -

I agree, the 747 is iconic - the A380 doesn't even look like it should fly.  I guess that isn't what they were going for though.
 
If you ask me, civil aviation died with the Concorde.
 

Glorious
Online
#5 Posted by Jadeskye (4368 posts) -
@Jimbo: Sir i wish to marry you. 
 
Oh Concorde, how i miss thee.
#6 Posted by HeadNodShy (72 posts) -

My guess for the cabin on the lower deck would be that since it is positioned lower it  offers the pilots a better viewing angle. Although I don't have any basis to make that statement. That being said, of course the Boeing is better lookin'

#7 Posted by FrankCanada97 (4039 posts) -
@Jimbo: Ah yes, can't forget the Concorde. Too bad it wasn't very economical. I personally miss the tri-jets. The DC-10 was a well designed plane after they rectified the cargo door problem. Too bad the media, as always, over-exaggerated the perceived faults (similar to what they do to video-games nowadays). The MD-11 was also a great looking plane but became redundant with the introduction of widebody twinjets.
#8 Posted by ZanzibarBreeze (3079 posts) -

I'm not bothered by the appearance of planes. Who gives a crap? As long as it does what it's meant to do. If it's meant to be an airplane that can carry, like, 400 or 500 people, then let it look like a cube, as long as it actually flies. But I guess it's a buff thing. If you guys are airplane buffs or whatever, and that's what you like, then that's fine. For me, airplanes are just tools to be used to ferry people from place to place. Also to be used in war.

#9 Posted by Getz (3140 posts) -
@Bucketdeth: You're more likely to die in a car than in a plane.
#10 Posted by Jadeskye (4368 posts) -
@ZanzibarBreeze: a presurised aluminium tube flying 6 miles up at close to the speed of sound carrying tons of flamable liquid. 
 
I prefer the romantic view, i don't like to be reminded i'm about to spend 8 hours sitting on a flying bomb >_>
#11 Edited by ZanzibarBreeze (3079 posts) -
@jadeskye said:

" I prefer the romantic view, i don't like to be reminded i'm about to spend 8 hours sitting on a flying bomb >_> "

FlyingBomb.com? Hmmm...
#12 Posted by Demonstride (864 posts) -

I don't really care as long as the inside of the airplane is nice. I'll take comfort over beauty any day when it comes to flying.

#13 Edited by FrankCanada97 (4039 posts) -
@Getz said:

" @Bucketdeth: You're more likely to die in a car than in a plane. "

Additionally, walking is more dangerous than air travel per kilometre.
Deaths per billion kilometres
Air 0.05
Bus 0.4
Rail 0.6
Van 1.2
Water 2.6
Car 3.1
Bicycle 44.6
Foot 54.2
Motorcycle 108.9
  @ZanzibarBreeze said:

" I'm not bothered by the appearance of planes. Who gives a crap? As long as it does what it's meant to do. If it's meant to be an airplane that can carry, like, 400 or 500 people, then let it look like a cube, as long as it actually flies. But I guess it's a buff thing. If you guys are airplane buffs or whatever, and that's what you like, then that's fine. For me, airplanes are just tools to be used to ferry people from place to place. Also to be used in war. "

That is beside the point, my topic was not about functionality it was about aesthetics. If I wanted to debate functionality, economic comparisons, fuel economy, what have you, I would've done so in another thread, but I didn't. It doesn't seem like an interesting enough topic.
#14 Posted by Jadeskye (4368 posts) -
@ZanzibarBreeze said:
" @jadeskye said:

" I prefer the romantic view, i don't like to be reminded i'm about to spend 8 hours sitting on a flying bomb >_> "

FlyingBomb.com? Hmmm... "
excuse me i gotta go register a domain name >_>
#15 Posted by yakov456 (1918 posts) -
@Jimbo said:
" I agree, the 747 is iconic - the A380 doesn't even look like it should fly.  I guess that isn't what they were going for though.
 
If you ask me, civil aviation died with the Concorde.
 
Glorious
"
And so did a bunch of people on it's final flight.
#16 Posted by Video_Game_King (36272 posts) -

What's the problem? A bit fat, but nothing ugly.

#17 Posted by SilentCommando (579 posts) -
@ZanzibarBreeze said:
" I'm not bothered by the appearance of planes. Who gives a crap? As long as it does what it's meant to do. If it's meant to be an airplane that can carry, like, 400 or 500 people, then let it look like a cube, as long as it actually flies. But I guess it's a buff thing. If you guys are airplane buffs or whatever, and that's what you like, then that's fine. For me, airplanes are just tools to be used to ferry people from place to place. Also to be used in war. "
Exactly.
#18 Posted by Matfei90 (1288 posts) -

I love the A380. Great looking airplane.