• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

10 Aircraft that Changed Aviation

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: AnitaPeterson
That article is so full of holes.... and so American-skewed, it makes me wonder how come the Me-262 is in there...

So the first jet planes flew in 1936, huh?

How about the world's first jet plane, in 1910?

...whatever....
Click to expand...
well technically they are kind of right the 262 did fly and did not "make a sudden steep climb and then landed with a bump. First the left wing hit the ground and then the aircraft crumpled up. I was not strapped in and so was fortunately thrown clear of the burning machine".

I agree though that is a nice page you posted and should be a mention in plane history for sure! 😀

 
and from the page you linked
"It was on 16 December 1910. I had no intention of flying on that day. My plan was to check the operation of the engine on the ground but the heat of the jet blast coming back at me was greater than I expected and I was worried in case I set the aeroplane on fire. For this reason I concentrated on adjusting the jet and did not realize that the aircraft was rapidly gaining speed. Then I looked up and saw the walls of Paris approaching rapidly. There was no time to stop or turn round and I decided to try and fly instead. Unfortunately I had no experience of flying and was not used to the controls of the aeroplane. The aeroplane seemed to make a sudden steep climb and then landed with a bump. First the left wing hit the ground and then the aircraft crumpled up. I was not strapped in and so was fortunately thrown clear of the burning machine".
Click to expand...

Doesn't sound like much of a flight to me.
 
Originally posted by: So
and from the page you linked
"It was on 16 December 1910. I had no intention of flying on that day. My plan was to check the operation of the engine on the ground but the heat of the jet blast coming back at me was greater than I expected and I was worried in case I set the aeroplane on fire. For this reason I concentrated on adjusting the jet and did not realize that the aircraft was rapidly gaining speed. Then I looked up and saw the walls of Paris approaching rapidly. There was no time to stop or turn round and I decided to try and fly instead. Unfortunately I had no experience of flying and was not used to the controls of the aeroplane. The aeroplane seemed to make a sudden steep climb and then landed with a bump. First the left wing hit the ground and then the aircraft crumpled up. I was not strapped in and so was fortunately thrown clear of the burning machine".
Click to expand...

Doesn't sound like much of a flight to me.
Click to expand...

Probably better than most of us could do in a similar situation. 🙂 At least most of us have a basic idea of how to fly b/c of flight sims of some sort or another.

edit Boeing Bird of Prey Check out this plane. It is slow, but dang, is it cool looking!
 
Interesting read, although I don't agree with ALL of their choices. Most of them are pretty good though.

I also liked how the wimped out and pretty much made it the top 20.
 
Originally posted by: DanTMWTMP
Originally posted by: DurocShark
Originally posted by: Kenazo
I do find it a little weird that the Wright brother's plane wasn't among them. 🙂
Now to read the article.
Click to expand...

I think they were looking for planes that affected aviation once aviation began...

I only disagreed with two of their choices: The 747 vs the 707 (the DC3 deserved it's mention) and the Spitfire vs the Mustang. If the Spitfire had been produced in the US, or in enough volume to be used as much as the Mustang, it would have performed the same. Plus it has the singular distinction of being one of 2 planes that kept Britain alive during the Battle of Britain.

They didn't list the biggest POS of WWII: The Brewster Buffalo. Aptly named plane with miserable performance.
Click to expand...

the spit fire had a huge defect though....everytime the plane went up to a high G lift , the gas would stop feeding into the engine.....but, the spitfire had a ton lot more range.

german pilots took advantage of this, so everytime they found a spitfire on their tails, they would lift up into the sky w/ their fuel injected engines and the spitfires couldn't keep up.

no other prop fighter was as versaitile as the mustang.

of course, the spitfire was one of the major reasons why battle of britain was won.
Click to expand...

Wrong way around. Spitfires had no gas feed in negative G's, diving.

German pilots could take some advantage of this by initiating a sharp dive, but a good Spitfire pilot simply wouldn't follow him. Then the Spitfire is laughing when he has the benefit of altitude.

109's did have a better climb rate...but not because the Spitfire lost gas. The Spitfire could turn inside a 109 any day of the week, however.
 
Originally posted by: Astaroth33
Kudos to them for putting in the X-15.. that plane was badass!
Click to expand...

It's only mentioned as a runner up.

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Also, the official max altitude of the SR-71 is still classified. I do know that it's a lot more than 85K feet.
Click to expand...

The max ceiling of a SR-71 is rumored to be around 110k-120k feet. There is an old story of an SR-71 calling into a Tower. The pilot says "Requesting airspace for FL800" (80k feet). The ATC (Air Traffic Controller) says "Sure, if you can reach it." And then the pilot says "Decending to FL800."

Originally posted by: AnitaPeterson
That article is so full of holes.... and so American-skewed, it makes me wonder how come the Me-262 is in there...

So the first jet planes flew in 1936, huh?

How about the world's first jet plane, in 1910?

...whatever....
Click to expand...

I agree. Very American skewed. They left out other German and Soviet planes that are crucial to the deign of modern planes.
 
Anymal and others:

Yes, I READ the article. You, on the other hand, did NOT read my post.

I said I wonder how come a German plane (Me-262) is mentioned at all, in what seems to be an all-American honor list.

The article ALSO claims that a Heinkel 178 machine was the first - experimental - jet plane.

Two different issues. I was commenting on BOTH.


Some may also consider reading this other MSN article :

The forgotten father of flight
 
I guess I agree with the German beef. the He-219 and He-111 were really a better bombers, or at least set the standard for what a bomber should do.














SHUX
 
Wrong way around. Spitfires had no gas feed in negative G's, diving.
Click to expand...

Another reason why film always show them diving whilst turning - this apparently helped the petrol surge. That article is way to US biased, not surprising really as its a us site. I would have liked to have seen the lancaster, concorde and the warthog. As for the bell x-1 youd think after all this time they would give proper credit for its design (and flaws)
 
Originally posted by: Shuxclams
I guess I agree with the German beef. the He-219 and He-111 were really a better bombers, or at least set the standard for what a bomber should do.

SHUX
Click to expand...

No way! The Germans were far from setting any kind of standard for long-range bombers; it was their Achille's heel. Their air force was so focused on tactical support for their ground forces that they had nothing with the range or bomb load to even effectively attack Britian across the Channel.
 
Originally posted by: PowerEngineer
Originally posted by: Shuxclams
I guess I agree with the German beef. the He-219 and He-111 were really a better bombers, or at least set the standard for what a bomber should do.

SHUX
Click to expand...

No way! The Germans were far from setting any kind of standard for long-range bombers; it was their Achille's heel. Their air force was so focused on tactical support for their ground forces that they had nothing with the range or bomb load to even effectively attack Britian across the Channel.
Click to expand...



They didnt live 3000 miles away from the war..... nor did they intend on that when those planes were developed in the early 30's. As for practical bombers and bombing they did what no plane had been created to do previously, thus making them relavent to the evolution of "bombers".










SHUX
 
Originally posted by: Shuxclams
Originally posted by: PowerEngineer
Originally posted by: Shuxclams
I guess I agree with the German beef. the He-219 and He-111 were really a better bombers, or at least set the standard for what a bomber should do.

SHUX
Click to expand...

No way! The Germans were far from setting any kind of standard for long-range bombers; it was their Achille's heel. Their air force was so focused on tactical support for their ground forces that they had nothing with the range or bomb load to even effectively attack Britian across the Channel.
Click to expand...



They didnt live 3000 miles away from the war..... nor did they intend on that when those planes were developed in the early 30's. As for practical bombers and bombing they did what no plane had been created to do previously, thus making them relavent to the evolution of "bombers".

SHUX
Click to expand...

The B-17 was also developed in the early 30's (first prototype flies on 7/28/35), and proved to be much more "practical" for what a bomber needed to do in WWII. The Heinkels may be relavent to the "evolution" of bombers as are others like the B-24 Liberator and the British Landcaster, but the B-17 is unarguably the best of that 30's class and the true standard setter.
 
Originally posted by: AnyMal
Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Originally posted by: Colt45
seems a little biased to the west. Some soviet planes definately changed aviation as well.
Click to expand...

I agree. The MIG-31 Firefox was the best plane ever built. 😉
Click to expand...

Not to mention that Tupolev-144 flew way before Concord
Click to expand...

Matter of months off the production line, 2 crashes and ceased production in 1981. Concorde far outlasted it, and would still be in service today had that 1 French Concorde not crashed and the downturn of the aviation industry since Sept 11. That list is all about impact, albeit slightly skewed to US planes. No Wright brothers either, so what can you say!
 
Originally posted by: Mingon
Wrong way around. Spitfires had no gas feed in negative G's, diving.
Click to expand...

Another reason why film always show them diving whilst turning - this apparently helped the petrol surge. That article is way to US biased, not surprising really as its a us site. I would have liked to have seen the lancaster, concorde and the warthog. As for the bell x-1 youd think after all this time they would give proper credit for its design (and flaws)
Click to expand...

agree with you there, concorde should definetly be on the list and probably the warthog also, and perhaps the harrier

and arent all the planes on that list US made? title should then be 10 US Aircraft that Changed Aviation
 
The xb70 was an amazing experimental plane, and should have made the list. Also the sheer power and size of the b-36 is unparalleled, IMHO.
 
I don't think the concorde really revolutionized aviation though... It was a revolution, but it kind of fizzled out and died. If, however, in 30 years we are all flying around in supersonic airliners, then it will be revolutionary, now it is more of a failed coup.
 
Originally posted by: Kenazo
I don't think the concorde really revolutionized aviation though... It was a revolution, but it kind of fizzled out and died. If, however, in 30 years we are all flying around in supersonic airliners, then it will be revolutionary, now it is more of a failed coup.
Click to expand...

The problem with the Concord was that it was never improved. It kept using the same dirty, obsolete engines. Combine that with the fact that it couldn't carry enough passengers to be profitable and it's a born loser. 🙁
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top