Dimples for planes

For more than a century golf balls have been made with dimpled surfaces. Why don't I see aircraft with similarly dimpled wings and bodies?

While appreciating that April Fool's Day will soon be upon us, having recently read a very interesting article in New Scientist on improvement of wing lift by adding a plasma "skin", I am prompted to ask - in all seriousness - this question, which some Aeronautical Engineers might consider facetious. 

For more than a century golf balls have been made with dimpled surfaces, because the dimples give better lift and distance than a ball with a smooth surface. So, after all that time - and especially now, when the oil price is very high and everyone is worried about the amount of fuel burned by airplanes - why don't I see all aircraft with similarly dimpled wings and bodies?

Is it because: (a) somebody, early on in the development of metal-skinned aircraft, thought it was "natural" that a smooth surface would give better airflow and hence less resistance/better performance, everyone else agreed and nobody since has bothered to prove or disprove the statement; (b) aircraft designers are so dedicated to their work that they don't have the time to waste hitting a ball around the countryside, otherwise one or more would have wondered whether dimples improved airflow and tried them out in a wind tunnel; or (c) that testing was done long ago and the result was that dimples didn't work for aircraft?

Perhaps some PE reader can enlighten me?

Tony Marshallsay

Next letter: Riches in renewables and turbine transparency