The 200 Billion Dollar Aesthetic Mistake

Lockheed Martin's Beautiful F-35

Lest we forget the three tenets of great engineering: Form, Function, Structure
Lewis Portal
Vitruvius, De Architectura, 1st Century B.C. 
Venustas-Utilitas-Firmitas (Beauty, usefulness, strength)

Aesthetics Matter. Here is a case from another field where the lack and care for aesthetics cost a company, Boeing, a fortune in billions of billions of dollars in a failed bid for a new X-Fighter contract. The bid was to build a Joint Services Fighter, an X-fighter for all the military services in a lucrative 200 billion dollar contract. Not only was this one of the biggest contracts to be handed out ever but one of the most important since this may well be the last manned military aircraft. The project was monumental, years in the making, tremendous research and engineering breakthroughs would need to be achieved and it all came down to choosing an aircraft between two companies: Boeing and Lockheed Martin.

Now I'm not going to discuss Lockheed's design the X-35, now the F-35 that won the competition but rather on what possibly went wrong with Boeing's bid, the X-32 (see below). When I first came across this story and being a designer, someone who drives their career on aesthetics, I was horrified when I saw this. If you read the general critiques about this plane there is no denying the overall consensus is that this plane is "Ugly". However along with that critique we also get retorts that it's appearance has nothing to do with it's performance and that "Form follows function" as the old architectural adage goes. I have now come to the conclusion that saying is one of the worst sayings in the history of mankind because the X-32 proves the opposite! I now believe after seeing this plane that form cannot follow function and that possibly form may trump function! Now for those of you who have never laid eyes on this plane feast your eyes on the image below. By looks alone you wouldn't believe this thing could even get off the ground let alone fly in a straight line....

Boeing's X-32

And now for my rant: The X-32 looks like it was designed by Pixar. It looks as aerodynamic as a brick with wings. It looks like a snake digesting its meal. It looks like it should be giving me 50 push ups, at least 50 times a day. It looks like ,"If pigs could fly..."  It looks like a plane landed on top of a bathtub. It looks like a humming bird somehow managed to swallow a golf ball. It's aerodynamic obesity. Look, the plane is smiling! The landing gear looks way to fragile to handle this heft, I could go on and on, it's just too easy.

Here's what Boeing forgot: You don't convince people with results only. There's more to life than just results. People are just as moved by results as they are by a beautiful piece of music, a beautiful painting, maybe even more so. Who in their right mind would not choose a beautiful Ferrari over a souped up Pinto? Who would rather live in the greatest Eco friendly cave as opposed to a well designed home? (well many people but I'm talking about normal folk) This may not compute with engineers, or the most pragmatic or those devoid of appreciation for beauty in the world (all of whom are in the minority) because they will all quip beauty won't stop a bullet, put a man on the moon get the job done etc. But that's not the point.  What you fail to understand is that if you fail in one mission you fail in all. Human psychology should not be removed from the equation of creating or the mission.  You must take note (directing my comment specifically to engineers) Ever wondered or noticed why the coolest engineering achievements also look the most bad ass as well? Think hard I don't think I need to spell it out, well OK I will. Typically great creations attract or produce or bring out the best in every area of the creation process- greatness attracts greatness and that includes aesthetics. (The SR-71 comes to mind, The Saturn V etc.)

Had I had the chance to have taken the Boeing engineers out to dinner in the early days of the project I would have arranged it at some garbage dump. A feast of the most unappealing looking god awful smelling food imaginable, one you couldn't get down without barfing. I would have sat them down at that table and said eat! They would have without a doubt told me to screw off and wouldn't eat that stuff with a gun pointed to their head. To which I would have said, sure it tastes and looks like shit but it's the most nutritious, healthiest life preserving food there is, forget about what it looks like, just hold your nose and close your eyes.  I contend not a single person would eat at that table but that's what they wanted the selection committee to do between the X-32 and X-35. So what did Lockheed do? They presented a Bacon Burger that could fly and dance in the sky. The plane was so aesthetically pleasing it looked like it could win WW III all by it self. The thing was it performed and functioned as good as it looked. Why would a jury pick a flying turnip over this?