Which aircraft will live in history forever?

[ArtKramr]

Which ones?


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[N329DF]

The Pilot Maker, North American AT-6 Texan
Matt Gunsch,
A&P,IA,Private Pilot
Riding member of the
2003 world champion drill team
Arizona Precision Motorcycle Drill Team
GWRRA,NRA,GOA

[[email protected]]

(ArtKramr) wrote:

>Which ones?
>
>Arthur Kramer

Lancaster
Concorde
Blackbird (SR-71)
Space Shuttle
--

-Gord.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>
> Which ones?
>

B-25 Mitchell

[Darrell A. Larose]

ArtKramr ) writes:
> Which ones?
>
Wright Flyer
Douglas DC-3 opened air travel for many
Boeing 707 First practical Jetliner
Boeing B-52 seems like it'll fly forever
Lockheed C-130 Hercules 49 years old still in production
Piper Cub opened general aviation for many

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
(ArtKramr) wrote:

> Which ones?
>
>
> Arthur Kramer
> 344th BG 494th BS
> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>

1. Wright Flyer
2. Space Shuttle
3. Concorde
3. DC-3 and all of its subvarieties
4. Piper Cub
5. Stuka
6. Fokker Triplane
7. Ryan NYP
8. B-52

[Ed Majden]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> Which ones?

Spitfire
Mustang
Sabre

[John Keeney]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> Which ones?

Wright Flyer
Sopwith Camel
Fokker Triplane
Ford Trimotor
Zero
Me 109
C-47
B-25
B-17
P-51
Spitfire
Me 262
B-29
MiG 15
707
U-2
Blackbird
B-52

[Keith Willshaw]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> Which ones?
>

Albatross
Sopwith Camel
Spitfire
Hurricane
P-51
Lancaster
B-17
B-29


Keith

[Scott Ferrin]

Wright Flyer
B-29 (nuked Japan)
U-2 (Cold War Symbol)
Concord
SR-71
Harrier (First real VTOL)
B-52 (if it ever *becomes* "history")
Me 262
X-1
X-15
KC-135


(there are lots of candidates such as the F-4, Mig-21, Zero, P-51,
etc. etc. but I think the above are unique and for that reason will
stand out)

[Bjørnar]

Scott Ferrin > wrote in
:

> Wright Flyer
> B-29 (nuked Japan)
> U-2 (Cold War Symbol)
> Concord
> SR-71
> Harrier (First real VTOL)
> B-52 (if it ever *becomes* "history")
> Me 262
> X-1
> X-15
> KC-135
>
>
> (there are lots of candidates such as the F-4, Mig-21, Zero, P-51,
> etc. etc. but I think the above are unique and for that reason will
> stand out)

And, perhaps, the most noteworthy aircrafts in history?

Spitfire (Battle of Britain)
DC-3 Dakota (worlds workhorse and lifesaviour)
Fokker Dr.1 (Red Baron)


Regards...

[Dave Kearton]

"Bjørnar" > wrote in message
...
> > (there are lots of candidates such as the F-4, Mig-21, Zero, P-51,
> > etc. etc. but I think the above are unique and for that reason will
> > stand out)
>
> And, perhaps, the most noteworthy aircrafts in history?
>
> Spitfire (Battle of Britain)
> DC-3 Dakota (worlds workhorse and lifesaviour)
> Fokker Dr.1 (Red Baron)
>
>
> Regards...



Cessna 152, 172


Jenny Simmonds



You never forget your first.



Cheers

Dave Kearton

[Rob van Riel]

(ArtKramr) wrote in message >...
> Which ones?

Wright Flyer
Fokker Dr1
Spitfire
P-51

The Wright Flyer will be preserved by the academics, if any plane ever
is. The Fokker and the Spit were legends in their own days, and those
legends have endured. I assume the P-51 has the same sort of standing
on the US side of the Atlantic as the Spit has in Western Europe. We
might want to add the Messerschmidt name to the list, but not
associated with any particular type.

There are some modern contenders, but they're too new to guess whether
or not they'll last.

This is all based on 'living in history' interpreted as being somewhat
known to the public. This disqualifies many very worthy planes with a
less glamourous image. With the amount of recording going on this past
century, I don't think many airplanes will be truly forgotton, barring
a total collapse of society as we know it.

Rob

[Bjørnar]

"Bjørnar" > wrote in news:Xns944060E5FCD79Bolsy@
193.216.69.37:
> Scott Ferrin > wrote in
> :
>
>> Wright Flyer
>> B-29 (nuked Japan)
>> U-2 (Cold War Symbol)
>> Concord
>> SR-71
>> Harrier (First real VTOL)
>> B-52 (if it ever *becomes* "history")
>> Me 262
>> X-1
>> X-15
>> KC-135
>>
>>
>> (there are lots of candidates such as the F-4, Mig-21, Zero, P-51,
>> etc. etc. but I think the above are unique and for that reason will
>> stand out)
>
> And, perhaps, the most noteworthy aircrafts in history?
>
> Spitfire (Battle of Britain)
> DC-3 Dakota (worlds workhorse and lifesaviour)
> Fokker Dr.1 (Red Baron)

Oh, and the Boeing 747 Jumbojet.



Regards...

[Cub Driver]

On 27 Nov 2003 03:52:24 GMT, (Darrell A.
Larose) wrote (a good list!)

>Wright Flyer

Absolutely, especially after this year. Poor Ken Hyde! His replica
just crashed.

>Douglas DC-3 opened air travel for many

There's one parked on the grass at Hampton Airport. It's my
grand-daughter's favorite plane.

>Boeing B-52 seems like it'll fly forever

Right! It'll live in history forever in an entirely new way.

>Piper Cub opened general aviation for many

And continues to do so. All students at Hampton Airport start out on a
J-3.

And note that the Cub is remarkable in another way: it's still in
production, as the PA-18 Top Cub from Cub Crafters in WA.

The J-3 I fly cost $2600 new in 1946. A Top Cub with no frills will
cost you $140,000 today.



all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put CUB in subject line)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Which aircraft will live in history forever?
>From: "Bjørnar"
>Date: 11/27/03 12:31 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>Scott Ferrin > wrote in
:
>
>> Wright Flyer
>> B-29 (nuked Japan)
>> U-2 (Cold War Symbol)
>> Concord
>> SR-71
>> Harrier (First real VTOL)
>> B-52 (if it ever *becomes* "history")
>> Me 262
>> X-1
>> X-15
>> KC-135
>>
>>
>> (there are lots of candidates such as the F-4, Mig-21, Zero, P-51,
>> etc. etc. but I think the above are unique and for that reason will
>> stand out)
>
> And, perhaps, the most noteworthy aircrafts in history?
>
> Spitfire (Battle of Britain)
> DC-3 Dakota (worlds workhorse and lifesaviour)
> Fokker Dr.1 (Red Baron)
>
>
> Regards...

Thank for adding REASONS for your choices.

I'll add one.

THE SPIRIT OF ST. LOUIS. It opened the idea of worldwide travel for
aircraft.and changed aircraft visions forever.

Regards,
Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Which aircraft will live in history forever?
>From: (Rob van Riel)
>Date: 11/27/03 1:29 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
(ArtKramr) wrote in message
>...
>> Which ones?
>
>Wright Flyer
>Fokker Dr1
>Spitfire
>P-51
>
>The Wright Flyer will be preserved by the academics, if any plane ever
>is. The Fokker and the Spit were legends in their own days, and those
>legends have endured. I assume the P-51 has the same sort of standing
>on the US side of the Atlantic as the Spit has in Western Europe. We
>might want to add the Messerschmidt name to the list, but not
>associated with any particular type.
>
>There are some modern contenders, but they're too new to guess whether
>or not they'll last.
>
>This is all based on 'living in history' interpreted as being somewhat
>known to the public. This disqualifies many very worthy planes with a
>less glamourous image. With the amount of recording going on this past
>century, I don't think many airplanes will be truly forgotton, barring
>a total collapse of society as we know it.
>
>Rob


Rob,

Thanks for adding reasons for your choices

Regards,

Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[KenG]

Flyer
Gooney Bird
Fortress
Mustang
Corsair
SuperFort
Connie
StratoFort
StratoFreighter (Dash 80)
JumboJet
HABU


ArtKramr wrote:
> Which ones?
>
>
> Arthur Kramer
> 344th BG 494th BS
> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>

[KenG]

Flyer The First (inspiration)
Gooney Bird Tireless Workhorse
Fortress Indestructible (almost)
Mustang Hot Rod
Corsair King of the Pacific
SuperFort War Ender
Connie Queen of the Skies
StratoFort Immortal
StratoFreighter (Dash 80) Jet Age
JumboJet Jumbo Jet
HABU Pinnacle


KenG wrote:

> Flyer
> Gooney Bird
> Fortress
> Mustang
> Corsair
> SuperFort
> Connie
> StratoFort
> StratoFreighter (Dash 80)
> JumboJet
> HABU
>
>
> ArtKramr wrote:
>
>> Which ones?
>>
>>
>> Arthur Kramer
>> 344th BG 494th BS
>> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
>> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
>> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>>
>

[Bjørnar]

"Bjørnar" > wrote in news:Xns944076CC83F4EBolsy@
193.216.69.37:

>> Spitfire (Battle of Britain)
>> DC-3 Dakota (worlds workhorse and lifesaviour)
>> Fokker Dr.1 (Red Baron)
>
> Oh, and the Boeing 747 Jumbojet (opened up economic long-distance
travel to the masses)

DeHavilland Comet (the first jet airliner, marking a new era in
civilian transport)



Regards...

[Bob Watson]

The de Havilland DHC-2 Beaver

Designed and built in Canada in the 1940's. First flown in 1947.
Still going strong today!


http://www.tofinoair.ca/fleet.htm

http://exn.ca/FlightDeck/Aircraft/hangar2.cfm?StoryName=de%20Havilland%20DH
C-2%20Beaver

http://www.dhc-2.com/current_cover_page.htm


Bob.

[Scott Ferrin]

Wright Flyer
B-29 (nuked Japan)
U-2 (Cold War Symbol)
Concord
SR-71
Harrier (First real VTOL)
B-52 (if it ever *becomes* "history")
Me 262
X-1
X-15
KC-135


(there are lots of candidates such as the F-4, Mig-21, Zero, P-51,
etc. etc. but I think the above are unique and for that reason will
stand out)

[Scott Ferrin]

> And, perhaps, the most noteworthy aircrafts in history?
>
> Spitfire (Battle of Britain)

I was going to have it on my list too but I couldn't remember if the
Battle of Britain fighter was the Spitfire or Tempest :-)

[robert arndt]

01. Zeppelin
02. Wright Flyer
03. Bleriot Monoplane
04. Fokkers: Eindecker, DR.I, D V.II
05. Sopwith Camel
06. Boeing Clippers
07. Ju 87 Stuka
08. Me Bf 109
09. Fw 190
10. Me-262
11. Supermarine Spitfire
12. Hawker Hurricane
13. Avro Lancaster
14. DeHavilland Mosquito
15. Hawker Typhoon/Tempest
16. Gloster Meteor
17. B-17 Flying Fortress
18. North American P-51 Mustang
19. Republic P-47 Thunderbolt
20. Lockheed P-38 Lightning
21. B-29 Superfortress (Enola Gay)
22. Mitsubishi A6/M-2 Zero
23. MiG-15
24. F-86 Sabre
25. Canberra
26. B-52 Stratofortess
27. F-4 Phantom
28. Avro Vulcan
29. Harrier
30. SR-71 Blackbird
31. MiG-25 Foxbat
32. Boeing 747
33. Concorde
34. F-15 Eagle
35. Space Shuttle
36. F-117 Nighthawk
37. Su 27 Flanker
38. Panavia Tornado
39. Airbus A.380
40. Solar Sail

Rob

2 cancelled projects deserve to be there too:

01. CF-105 Arrow
02. BAC TSR-2

[Ed Majden]

Most mention the Spitfire of Battle of Britain fame but neglect mentioning
the work horse, the Hawker Huricane. The Huricane out numbered Spitfires
two-to-one during the Battle of Britain. Polish 303 Squadron was the most
decorated squadron at this time and they flew Huricanes.

[Bjørnar Bolsøy]

As for rotaty-wings, my vote goes to the UH-1 Huey, for defining
the the role of the helicopter in modern combat and rescue, and
for beeing perhaps the most famous helicopter of all times.

If not the Bell 47, the pioneer which turned the helicopter concept
into a true efficient and reliable utility platform.

Then I guess the Sikorsky S61/Westlang Seaking, for its invaluable
role especially in maritime SAR operations worldwide.

Then the AH-1 Cobra, for being the first true helicopter gunship
and tankbuster.


Regards...

[Bjørnar Bolsøy]

Scott Ferrin > wrote in
:

>
> Wright Flyer
> B-29 (nuked Japan)
> U-2 (Cold War Symbol)
> Concord
> SR-71
> Harrier (First real VTOL)
> B-52 (if it ever *becomes* "history")
> Me 262
> X-1
> X-15
> KC-135


The Bell X-1, for breaking the notorious soundbarrier, thereby
writing itself into history as one of the greatest aviation
moments of all times.


Regards...

[[email protected]]

"Dave Kearton" >
wrote:

>"Bjørnar" > wrote in message
...
>> > (there are lots of candidates such as the F-4, Mig-21, Zero, P-51,
>> > etc. etc. but I think the above are unique and for that reason will
>> > stand out)
>>
>> And, perhaps, the most noteworthy aircrafts in history?
>>
>> Spitfire (Battle of Britain)
>> DC-3 Dakota (worlds workhorse and lifesaviour)
>> Fokker Dr.1 (Red Baron)
>>
>>
>> Regards...
>
>
>
>Cessna 152, 172
>
>
>Jenny Simmonds
>
>
>
>You never forget your first.
>
>
>
>Cheers
>
>Dave Kearton
>

Jenny?...JENNY SIMMONDS?!?!...

.....just wait till she gets home here tonight!!...


:)
--

-Gord.

[Dan Shackelford]

On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 18:51:43 +0000, Bjørnar Bolsøy wrote:

> Scott Ferrin > wrote in
> :
>
>
>> Wright Flyer
>> B-29 (nuked Japan)
>> U-2 (Cold War Symbol)
>> Concord
>> SR-71
>> Harrier (First real VTOL)
>> B-52 (if it ever *becomes* "history") Me 262
>> X-1
>> X-15
>> KC-135
>
>
> The Bell X-1, for breaking the notorious soundbarrier, thereby writing
> itself into history as one of the greatest aviation moments of all times.
>
Except for the fact that the X-1 was NOT the first manned aircraft to
break the sound barrier, it was the F-86 that broke the sound barrier
first. One of the great myths in aviation lore is that the X-1 was first.


>
> Regards...

[Keith Willshaw]

"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
>
> > And, perhaps, the most noteworthy aircrafts in history?
> >
> > Spitfire (Battle of Britain)
>
> I was going to have it on my list too but I couldn't remember if the
> Battle of Britain fighter was the Spitfire or Tempest :-)

The most numerous fighter and the aircraft with the greatest
number of kills was the Hawker Hurricane.

Keith

[Dave Kearton]

"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
> "Dave Kearton" >
> wrote:

> >
> >Jenny Simmonds
> >
> >
> >
> >You never forget your first.
> >
> >
> >
> >Dave Kearton
> >

>
> Jenny?...JENNY SIMMONDS?!?!...
>
> ....just wait till she gets home here tonight!!...
>
>
> :)
> --
>
> -Gord.



Gordon, if you were riding that trail, you'd be 90 now.


Not exactly the road less travelled, but you'd still be one lucky cowpoke.



Cheers

Dave Kearton

[Scott Ferrin]

On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 21:13:34 -0000, "Keith Willshaw"
> wrote:

>
>"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> > And, perhaps, the most noteworthy aircrafts in history?
>> >
>> > Spitfire (Battle of Britain)
>>
>> I was going to have it on my list too but I couldn't remember if the
>> Battle of Britain fighter was the Spitfire or Tempest :-)
>
>The most numerous fighter and the aircraft with the greatest
>number of kills was the Hawker Hurricane.
>
>Keith


Hurricane not Tempest was what I was thinking. I get the Spitfire,
Tempest, and Hurricane mixed up. I know what the Typhoon is, no mix
up there, but those others I always get screwed up.

[Scott Ferrin]

On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 21:08:44 GMT, Dan Shackelford
> wrote:

>On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 18:51:43 +0000, Bjørnar Bolsøy wrote:
>
>> Scott Ferrin > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>
>>> Wright Flyer
>>> B-29 (nuked Japan)
>>> U-2 (Cold War Symbol)
>>> Concord
>>> SR-71
>>> Harrier (First real VTOL)
>>> B-52 (if it ever *becomes* "history") Me 262
>>> X-1
>>> X-15
>>> KC-135
>>
>>
>> The Bell X-1, for breaking the notorious soundbarrier, thereby writing
>> itself into history as one of the greatest aviation moments of all times.
>>
>Except for the fact that the X-1 was NOT the first manned aircraft to
>break the sound barrier, it was the F-86 that broke the sound barrier
>first. One of the great myths in aviation lore is that the X-1 was first.
>
>
>>
>> Regards...

Level? Because diving doesn't count. If it did they'd have just
strapped a guy into a big bomb and dropped it. When it broke mach
he'd pop the airbrakes and bail. They could have done THAT in WWII.
The level vs. diving is debatable I'm sure but it seems to me that was
the big deal.

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Which aircraft will live in history forever?
>From: Scott Ferrin
>Date: 11/27/03 3:50 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 21:13:34 -0000, "Keith Willshaw"
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>> > And, perhaps, the most noteworthy aircrafts in history?
>>> >
>>> > Spitfire (Battle of Britain)
>>>
>>> I was going to have it on my list too but I couldn't remember if the
>>> Battle of Britain fighter was the Spitfire or Tempest :-)
>>
>>The most numerous fighter and the aircraft with the greatest
>>number of kills was the Hawker Hurricane.
>>
>>Keith
>
>
>Hurricane not Tempest was what I was thinking. I get the Spitfire,
>Tempest, and Hurricane mixed up. I know what the Typhoon is, no mix
>up there, but those others I always get screwed up.


As long as you get the right war. (grin)

Regards,

Arthur

Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Dave Kearton]

"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
>
> Level? Because diving doesn't count. If it did they'd have just
> strapped a guy into a big bomb and dropped it. When it broke mach
> he'd pop the airbrakes and bail. They could have done THAT in WWII.
> The level vs. diving is debatable I'm sure but it seems to me that was
> the big deal.


It was certainly a big deal at the time. The term sound BARRIER
implied that it could never be broken and shouldn't be attempted.
There was enough known about mach limitations and compressability for all
the 'experts' to fall into one of two camps (yes and no)


Plenty of pilots died unintentionally while diving past their mach
limitations to make George Welch's feat significant. The fact that a
plane had (allegedly) gone past mach 1 and survived in reasonable shape -
disproved the widespread belief that the speed of sound was the absolute
limit that could ever be reached.

Being able to do Mach 2 while sucking on a pink gin, complaining about the
rock stars behind you and reading the Times less than 30 years later would
earn a place for the Concorde as well.




Cheers

Dave Kearton

[ArtKramr]

>>From: Scott Ferrin
>>Date: 11/27/03 3:50 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: >
>>
>>On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 21:13:34 -0000, "Keith Willshaw"
> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>> > And, perhaps, the most noteworthy aircrafts in history?
>>>> >
>>>> > Spitfire (Battle of Britain)
>>>>
>>>> I was going to have it on my list too but I couldn't remember if the
>>>> Battle of Britain fighter was the Spitfire or Tempest :-)
>>>
>>>The most numerous fighter and the aircraft with the greatest
>>>number of kills was the Hawker Hurricane.
>>>
>>>Keith
>>
>>
>>Hurricane not Tempest was what I was thinking. I get the Spitfire,
>>Tempest, and Hurricane mixed up. I know what the Typhoon is, no mix
>>up there, but those others I always get screwed up.
>
>
>As long as you get the right war. (grin)
>
> Regards,
>
>Arthur
>
>Arthur Kramer
>344th BG 494th BS
> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
>Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
>http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>


What??? No Spirit of St. Louis???



Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Scott Ferrin]

On 28 Nov 2003 00:10:44 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

>>Subject: Re: Which aircraft will live in history forever?
>>From: Scott Ferrin
>>Date: 11/27/03 3:50 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: >
>>
>>On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 21:13:34 -0000, "Keith Willshaw"
> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>> > And, perhaps, the most noteworthy aircrafts in history?
>>>> >
>>>> > Spitfire (Battle of Britain)
>>>>
>>>> I was going to have it on my list too but I couldn't remember if the
>>>> Battle of Britain fighter was the Spitfire or Tempest :-)
>>>
>>>The most numerous fighter and the aircraft with the greatest
>>>number of kills was the Hawker Hurricane.
>>>
>>>Keith
>>
>>
>>Hurricane not Tempest was what I was thinking. I get the Spitfire,
>>Tempest, and Hurricane mixed up. I know what the Typhoon is, no mix
>>up there, but those others I always get screwed up.
>
>
>As long as you get the right war. (grin)

LOL

[Dave Kearton]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>
> What??? No Spirit of St. Louis???
>
>
>
> Arthur Kramer
> 344th BG 494th BS
> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>


The difficulty I have with the Spirit of St Louis is that it's a US national
icon and that there's bound to be a fair amount of emotion tied up in
defending it.


Looking a little more dispassionately at the issue, I think Lindberg should
be remembered long after the plane fades into the dim dark past, as it was
really HIS achievement, the plane just had to be there.


By the time Lucky Lindy made the crossing, he was (what ?) the 39th pilot
to cross the pond - but the first to do it alone. Given what he went
through and the number of pilots who disappeared while trying to do the same
makes _Lindberg's_ achievement notable.


The plane that seems to have avoided the Usenet radar is the Vickers Vimy
that Alcock and Brown used to FIRST fly across the Atlantic.


While single crew crossings are fairly commonplace these days, they're
dwarfed in numbers by the multi crew crossings that occur in their hundreds
daily, unescorted and unrefuelled - as pioneered by Alcock and Brown in
June 1919.







Cheers

Dave Kearton

[[email protected]]

"Dave Kearton" >
wrote:

>"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
>> "Dave Kearton" >
>> wrote:
>
>> >
>> >Jenny Simmonds
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >You never forget your first.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >Dave Kearton
>> >
>
>>
>> Jenny?...JENNY SIMMONDS?!?!...
>>
>> ....just wait till she gets home here tonight!!...
>>
>>
>> :)
>> --
>>
>> -Gord.
>
>
>
>Gordon, if you were riding that trail, you'd be 90 now.
>
>
>Not exactly the road less travelled, but you'd still be one lucky cowpoke.
>
>
>
>Cheers
>
>Dave Kearton
>
Well when I asked her if she remembers Dave she blushed and her
eyes sparkled. :)
--

-Gord.

[Darrell A. Larose]

Scott Ferrin ) writes:
>> And, perhaps, the most noteworthy aircrafts in history?
>>
>> Spitfire (Battle of Britain)
>
> I was going to have it on my list too but I couldn't remember if the
> Battle of Britain fighter was the Spitfire or Tempest :-)
>
The Hurricane played a big role in the Battle of Britain, and got little
of the glory. The Tempest was a mud mover used in ground attack, it was
the A-10 of WWII. Came after the BoB in about 1944 TOS.

[Keith Willshaw]

"Darrell A. Larose" > wrote in message
...
> Scott Ferrin ) writes:

> The Hurricane played a big role in the Battle of Britain, and got little
> of the glory. The Tempest was a mud mover used in ground attack, it was
> the A-10 of WWII. Came after the BoB in about 1944 TOS.
>

No that was the Typhoon.

The Tempest was its sibling but was mainly used to shoot
down the V1's as it was about the fastest of the piston engined
fighter aircraft and was replaced in RAF service by Vampire
and Maeteor jets.

Keith

[Nele_VII]

I will stick to the famous jets;

X-1 first airplane that broke the sound barrier in level flight);
MiG15 & F-86 (Korea)
Mig-19 (first operational supersonic fighter in the world)
A-12/SR-71 (first operational mach-3 airplane)
MiG-21 (fought almost every war after Korea, over 10,000 built and still in
production in China)
F-4 Phantom II (legend of its own, too many reasons to explain)
EE Lightning (sky dragster! 8-)
F-14 Tomcat (first of 'teen' series, a plane with a character)

--

Nele

NULLA ROSA SINE SPINA

[Cub Driver]

> DeHavilland Comet (the first jet airliner, marking a new era in
> civilian transport)

Carried too few passengers at too high a cost. It was the Concorde of
its day, without the longevity. A conceptual dead end.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put CUB in subject line)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Cub Driver]

> I couldn't remember if the
>Battle of Britain fighter was the Spitfire or Tempest :-)

It was the Hurricane, mostly.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put CUB in subject line)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Cub Driver]

> As for rotaty-wings, my vote goes to the UH-1 Huey, for defining
> the the role of the helicopter in modern combat and rescue, and
> for beeing perhaps the most famous helicopter of all times.

Yes, definitely the Huey. I spent as many Huey hours helicopter skiing
in Canada as I did hitchhiking around Vietnam, but it is the heat and
the rain forest that give me a flash when I hear the whump-whump of
those Huey rotors overhead.

Speaking of longevity -- surely an important factor in living in
history -- the army has just ordered a new iteration of the Huey. Or
so I recall from a recent Aero-News email.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put CUB in subject line)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Cub Driver]

>Except for the fact that the X-1 was NOT the first manned aircraft to
>break the sound barrier, it was the F-86 that broke the sound barrier
>first. One of the great myths in aviation lore is that the X-1 was first.

Oh God. Here we go again.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put CUB in subject line)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Brett]

"Cub Driver" > wrote:
| > DeHavilland Comet (the first jet airliner, marking a new era in
| > civilian transport)
|
| Carried too few passengers at too high a cost. It was the Concorde of
| its day, without the longevity. A conceptual dead end.

"longevity"
The RAF's HS.801 Nimrod was a Comet 4C conversion.

[The Raven]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> Which ones?

Wright Flyer hands down.


--
The Raven
http://www.80scartoons.co.uk/batfinkquote.mp3
** President of the ozemail.* and uunet.* NG's
** since August 15th 2000.

[The Raven]

"Darrell A. Larose" > wrote in message
...
> ArtKramr ) writes:
> > Which ones?
> >
> Wright Flyer

Agreed

> Douglas DC-3 opened air travel for many

Yes

> Boeing 707 First practical Jetliner

The Comet should get that despite it's initial problems.

> Boeing B-52 seems like it'll fly forever

Skipping the Mustang and Spitfire?

> Lockheed C-130 Hercules 49 years old still in production

So is the FW-190 and ME-262 if you push the technicalities.........

> Piper Cub opened general aviation for many

Yup.


--
The Raven
http://www.80scartoons.co.uk/batfinkquote.mp3
** President of the ozemail.* and uunet.* NG's
** since August 15th 2000.

[M. J. Powell]

In message >, The Raven
> writes
>"Darrell A. Larose" > wrote in message
...
>> ArtKramr ) writes:
>> > Which ones?
>> >
>> Wright Flyer
>
>Agreed
>
>> Douglas DC-3 opened air travel for many
>
>Yes
>
>> Boeing 707 First practical Jetliner
>
>The Comet should get that despite it's initial problems.
>
>> Boeing B-52 seems like it'll fly forever
>
>Skipping the Mustang and Spitfire?
>
>> Lockheed C-130 Hercules 49 years old still in production
>
>So is the FW-190 and ME-262 if you push the technicalities.........
>
>> Piper Cub opened general aviation for many

So did the Tiger Moth and Taylorcraft Auster, over here.

Mike
-
M.J.Powell

[David McArthur]

Cub Driver > wrote in message >...
> > DeHavilland Comet (the first jet airliner, marking a new era in
> > civilian transport)
>
> Carried too few passengers at too high a cost. It was the Concorde of
> its day, without the longevity. A conceptual dead end.

Pretty good at hunting subs though....
David

[H]

"ArtKramr" > kirjoitti
...
> Which ones?
>
>
> Arthur Kramer
> 344th BG 494th BS
> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>

Ilyushin Il-2/Il-10
Polikarpov U-2/Po-2
Ilya Muromets, first four engine airplane

[Emmanuel.Gustin]

Dave Kearton > wrote:

: The difficulty I have with the Spirit of St Louis is that it's a US national
: icon and that there's bound to be a fair amount of emotion tied up in
: defending it.

It was a good design for the flight; but it was only
Lindbergh's second best option. He really wanted to
have the Bellanca in which Chamberlin and Levin flew
from New York to Berlin, a few day's after Lindbergh's
flight from New York to Paris. Note that the Bellanca
was able to make a longer flight, carrying two people
instead of one, and was a practical aircraft for daily
use (which the Spirit of St. Louis emphatically was
not). Later another Bellanca made the first non-stop
crossing of the Pacific.

: The plane that seems to have avoided the Usenet radar is the Vickers Vimy
: that Alcock and Brown used to FIRST fly across the Atlantic.

The Vimy was a fairly conservative design, very much
a WWI bomber and nothing more.

IMHO the really great aircraft of the period was the
Fokker F.VII/3m, especially the version with Wright
Whirlwind engines. This not only made great long-distance
flights, but it also opened transcontinental routes
for commercial traffic.

Emmanuel Gustin
--
http://users.skynet.be/Emmanuel.Gustin/

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Which aircraft will live in history forever?
>From: "Emmanuel.Gustin"
>Date: 11/28/03 3:05 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id:

>he difficulty I have with the Spirit of St Louis is that it's a US national
>: icon and that there's bound to be a fair amount of emotion tied up in
>: defending it.
>

>It was a good design for the flight; but it was only
>Lindbergh's second best option. He really wanted to
>have the Bellanca in which Chamberlin and Levin flew
>from New York to Berlin, a few day's after Lindbergh's
>flight from New York to Paris.

But will the Spirit of St. Louis live in history forever? That is the question
at hand.

Regards,



Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Franck]

do you know us are not alone in the aero stories ?

--
Franck

www.pegase-airshow.com
www.picavia.com

[Franck]

Bleriot XI
Spad XIII
Mirage III
Concorde & Boeing 747

and the first one : Spitfire

sorry for the US member, i think US is not alone in the aviation world

--
Franck

www.pegase-airshow.com
www.picavia.com

[Avro Canada Archives]

Or, the first straight winged aircraft to break the sound barrier -- the
Avro Canada CF-100 piloted by Janusz Zurakowski.

Dan Shackelford wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 18:51:43 +0000, Bjørnar Bolsøy wrote:
>
>
>>Scott Ferrin > wrote in
:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Wright Flyer
>>>B-29 (nuked Japan)
>>>U-2 (Cold War Symbol)
>>>Concord
>>>SR-71
>>>Harrier (First real VTOL)
>>>B-52 (if it ever *becomes* "history") Me 262
>>>X-1
>>>X-15
>>>KC-135
>>
>>
>> The Bell X-1, for breaking the notorious soundbarrier, thereby writing
>> itself into history as one of the greatest aviation moments of all times.
>>
>
> Except for the fact that the X-1 was NOT the first manned aircraft to
> break the sound barrier, it was the F-86 that broke the sound barrier
> first. One of the great myths in aviation lore is that the X-1 was first.
>
>
>
>> Regards...
>
>

[Ed Rasimus]

On 27 Nov 2003 02:51:50 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

>Which ones?

Lots of great candidates. A key discriminator is whether you wish to
base the choice on significance of the aircraft itself--i.e., the
aeronautical achievement of the airplane, or the historic significance
of what the particular aircraft did.

If based on the aircaft, then I'd list:
Wright Flyer
C-47
B-707
SR-71
X-1
X-15
Spirit of St. Louis
.....and some others.

If based on historic achievements, the list shifts toward military
aircraft. Then a few important candidates for the short list:

Spad
Nieuport
Fokker
Spitfire
Me-109
Mustang
B-17
B-24
B-29
B-36
B-52
F-86
F-105
F-4
F-15
MiG-17
MiG-21
F-117

Let's refine criteria and then we can refine the list.

[Tex Houston]

"Avro Canada Archives" > wrote in message
...
> Or, the first straight winged aircraft to break the sound barrier -- the
> Avro Canada CF-100 piloted by Janusz Zurakowski.

The Bell X-1 had straight wings.
http://www.nasm.si.edu/galleries/gal100/bellX1.html

Tex

[Ed Majden]

"Tex Houston" > > Or, the first straight winged aircraft to break the sound
barrier -- the
> > Avro Canada CF-100 piloted by Janusz Zurakowski.
>
> The Bell X-1 had straight wings.
> http://www.nasm.si.edu/galleries/gal100/bellX1.html
>
Tex
The Bell X-1 was a rocket powered aircraft, not a jet!
Ed

[Tex Houston]

"Ed Majden" > wrote in message
news:UeUxb.515673$6C4.151523@pd7tw1no...
>
> "Tex Houston" > > Or, the first straight winged aircraft to break the
sound
> barrier -- the
> > > Avro Canada CF-100 piloted by Janusz Zurakowski.
> >
> > The Bell X-1 had straight wings.
> > http://www.nasm.si.edu/galleries/gal100/bellX1.html
> >
> Tex
> The Bell X-1 was a rocket powered aircraft, not a jet!
> Ed


And where did that restriction appear in the sentence: "Or, the first
straight winged aircraft to break the sound
barrier -- the
Avro Canada CF-100 piloted by Janusz Zurakowski." ? I just took it at face
value. Should I have read his mind?

Tex

[Ed Majden]

"Tex Houston" > > The Bell X-1 was a rocket powered aircraft, not a jet!
> > Ed
>
>
> And where did that restriction appear in the sentence: "Or, the first
> straight winged aircraft to break the sound
> barrier -- the
> Avro Canada CF-100 piloted by Janusz Zurakowski." ? I just took it at
face
> value. Should I have read his mind?
>
> Tex

I could also add the CF-100 Mk-4 was an operational jet fighter instead
of an experimental aircraft but that might **** you off to! ;-)
>
>

[Cub Driver]

While we're at it, should we have awards for the first delta-wing
aircraft to break the sound barrier, the first airliner to break the
sound barrier, the first bizjet to break the sound barrier, the first
orange plane to break -- oops, Glamorous Glennis was orange!

Okay, the first puce aircraft to break the sound barrier?

Get real, Canada. You are a splendid country, especially for Piper
Cubs on floats, and the Beaver was s splendid aircraft. Be content
with that.

On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 03:58:09 GMT, "Ed Majden" >
wrote:

>
>"Tex Houston" > > The Bell X-1 was a rocket powered aircraft, not a jet!
>> > Ed
>>
>>
>> And where did that restriction appear in the sentence: "Or, the first
>> straight winged aircraft to break the sound
>> barrier -- the
>> Avro Canada CF-100 piloted by Janusz Zurakowski." ? I just took it at
>face
>> value. Should I have read his mind?
>>
>> Tex
>
> I could also add the CF-100 Mk-4 was an operational jet fighter instead
>of an experimental aircraft but that might **** you off to! ;-)
>>

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Brett]

"Ed Majden" > wrote:.
|
| "Tex Houston" > > The Bell X-1 was a rocket powered aircraft, not
a jet!
| > > Ed
| >
| >
| > And where did that restriction appear in the sentence: "Or, the
first
| > straight winged aircraft to break the sound
| > barrier -- the
| > Avro Canada CF-100 piloted by Janusz Zurakowski." ? I just took it
at
| face
| > value. Should I have read his mind?
| >
| > Tex
|
| I could also add the CF-100 Mk-4 was an operational jet fighter
instead
| of an experimental aircraft but that might **** you off to! ;-)

The normal claim is that it was the first straight wing aircraft to
exceed Mach 1 in a DIVE without the assistance of a ROCKET. btw. The
Mk-4 he was flying was a preproduction model.

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
"The Raven" > writes:
> "Darrell A. Larose" > wrote in message
> ...
>> ArtKramr ) writes:
>> > Which ones?
>> >
>> Wright Flyer
>
> Agreed


>> Douglas DC-3 opened air travel for many
>
> Yes
>
>> Boeing 707 First practical Jetliner
>
> The Comet should get that despite it's initial problems.

I'd have to disagreee, here. The COmet I was a pioneer, but it was
hardly practical. You could even make a case that the early Comet
experience, along with experience gained with the USAF's B-47s, set
back the willingness of teh airlines to accept jet transports, rather
than moving it ahead.

The Comet Is, even without the two fatigue-induced crashes, had a
dismal safety record. (As an example, it had incredibly tight
tolerances for handling durig takeoff and landing. At around 120 kts,
you had to rotate it to an AOA of exactly 10 degrees, += 1 degree. If you
underrotated, you'd never get off the ground on any runway known at
that time. If you overrotated, the increased Induced Drag would
prevent you from reaching takeoff speed at all. If you rotated early
(slow), teh increased induced drag would stop you again. On a
percantage basis, more Comet Is were lost than the Notoriously Evil
B-58. The B-47 also had some demanding handling characteristics, most
notable its long takeoff runs, and, due to the slow acceleration of
the J47s that powered them, and the bicycle landing gear, in the
landing pattern. The statistics of the Comet, and the first-hand
reports of ex-USAF Airline Pilots who'd flown the B-47, convinced the
airlines that large jets would be too knife-edged to allow safe
operation in airline conditions. This is on top of the range and
payload performance, which was marginal for the North Atlantic run.

The 707 changed all that. Although it was a big, fast long-ranged
jet, it was designed to fly just like any other transport. Boeing's
selling method was to take the prospective airline's Cheif Pilot, sit
him in the left seat, and have him fly the airplane. The operating
economy was much more favorable, as well. Once they entered service,
it was found that a 707 could make 3-4 transatlantic trips in the time
that it rook a DC-7 or COnstellation to make 1 trip. This was due to
the simplicity and reliability of the jets over the later
recips. (R3350, for the most part. The R4360 was never a player in
the commercial scene). Basically, when a recip airliner landed in
London after hopping over from New York, (Landings at Gander, Shannin
or Prestwick, and, possibly Rekyjvik), you had to go through it with a
fine-tooted comb to tune the engines and props for the next flight.
The 707 (and, a bit later, the DC-8), just needed to be swept out,
refuelled, the meals and passengers loaded, and off it went with a new
crew.

The Comet was important, much as the Fokker F.VIIb Trimotor was
important. It showed a hint of what was to come, but didn't change
things very much. The 707, on the other hand, had an impact about
like that of the DC-3. It changed the way that Air Travel was going
to work forever after.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Ed Majden]

"Cub Driver" >
> Okay, the first puce aircraft to break the sound barrier?
>
Might not have been the slickest aircraft ever built but it served well
looking after your northern flank with NORAD for several years. Also NATO
pleaded with Canada to send some to Europe as they did not have an effective
night fighter at the time. The sound barrier trick was not recommended and
was not possible with the MK5 CF-100. Wing tip extensions were added to
achieve a higher intercept ceiling extending the life for a few more years.
Incidentally, the CF100 was considered for service with the USAF but the
Canberra was bought instead because it was equipped to carry a bomb load.
The CF100 was not. The MK4 used two wing tip rocket pods with 29 rockets
per pod along with 8 - 50 cal machine guns in a belly gun bay. There was
also a belly rocket bay that did not work very well. The guns were removed
in the MK5 version that was used with NORAD. Great place to carry lobsters
from the east coast to various west coast mess functions. ;-) Don't tell the
wheels this was done, ha! ha!
Ed

[Bjørnar Bolsøy]

(Peter Stickney) wrote in
:

> The Comet was important, much as the Fokker F.VIIb Trimotor was
> important. It showed a hint of what was to come, but didn't
> change things very much. The 707, on the other hand, had an
> impact about like that of the DC-3. It changed the way that Air
> Travel was going to work forever after.

I saw a program on Discovery once about the 707, and if I remember
correctly the 707 was a revolution in more ways than just it's
performance and impact, it's design and production aspects brought
together more Boeing intellect and production facilities than
any airplane before it. Much like the B-29 also did, if I'm not
mistaking.


Regards...

[Cub Driver]

>The Comet was important, much as the Fokker F.VIIb Trimotor was
>important.

Or the Boeing 247. Beautiful aircraft, ahead of its time, much too
small, fated to irrelevancy. 75 were built.

The Comet was the 247 of the 1950s. 36 passengers! What were they
thinking?

(Well, the answer to that is clear. The Comet was designed by a
government committee, or at least the specs were laid down by one.)

Even if the Comet hadn't developed a habit of falling into the ocean,
it would have been swept away by the Boeing 707. Modern transportation
was created by the 707. In an alternate universe, the rich would be
traveling to Yurrup by Concorde (the logical granddaughter of the
Comet) while the rest of us would be traveling Tourist Class in the
Queen Mary II.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Peter Stickney]

In article >,
Cub Driver > writes:
>
>>The Comet was important, much as the Fokker F.VIIb Trimotor was
>>important.
>
> Or the Boeing 247. Beautiful aircraft, ahead of its time, much too
> small, fated to irrelevancy. 75 were built.

A very good analogue. I can see that.
>
> The Comet was the 247 of the 1950s. 36 passengers! What were they
> thinking?
>
> (Well, the answer to that is clear. The Comet was designed by a
> government committee, or at least the specs were laid down by one.)

Well, Air Travel was a different proposition to the Brits. The
purpose of Imperial Airways/B.O.A.C. was to deliver Official Mail and
the occasional King's Messenger to the far-flung reaches (But stopping
at every villiage along the way) of the Empire. It's one of the
reasons why they were never able to get that structure weight to
payload/fuel fraction thing straightened out. Another good example is
the Brabazon. Nearly the size of a B-36, and fewer passengers than a
DC-4. (A very well stocked Bar, no doubt, and servants up the
Ying-Yang. Did it have 4-poster beds?)

In the U.S., we viewed Air Travel as a tool of Commerce. It was a
way to get as many people from Point A to Point B in as quick a time
as practical. The longer stage langths here inside the U.S. led to a
drive to produce more efficient aircraft that could carry more
disposable load, and make as much of that load be passengers as possible.

For another example, consider the Shorts 'C' and 'G' Class Flying
Boats mentioned elsewhere in this thread in connection with B.O.A.C.'s
Air Refuelling experiments, and how they stack up to the Boeing 314s
that Pan Am was using on the same routes. (Pan Am originally wanted to
make the North Atlantic run in the early '30s, but the British
Government wouldn't grant Landing RIghts until Imperial/B.O.A.C. could
compete. The way that B.O.A.C. matched the 314 was to buy a batch of
them.

> Even if the Comet hadn't developed a habit of falling into the ocean,
> it would have been swept away by the Boeing 707. Modern transportation
> was created by the 707. In an alternate universe, the rich would be
> traveling to Yurrup by Concorde (the logical granddaughter of the
> Comet) while the rest of us would be traveling Tourist Class in the
> Queen Mary II.

Quite so.
In the same speed/commerce vein as related above, I think you could
say that the logical succesor to the Concorde is really the Internet,
and the vastly improved communication and presence that it brings.
When I was with Duracell, and having to troubleshoot systems all over
the globe, it was much more efficient for e to be at my desk,
connected directly into whatever system I nedded to be in, no matter
where I was. Aarshot, Belgium was just a keystroke away from Hong
Kong.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

[Cub Driver]

> Another good example is
>the Brabazon.

I'd forgotten that one. Did you know that it was the Brabazon
Committee that laid down the specs for the plane that became the
Comet? (The first prototype actually seated 20 passengers.)

Be interesting to know how the how the Airbus evolved. Was that too a
government committee?

I suppose aircraft design is now more craft than art, whereas in the
1940s you built the plane first and then discovered whether or not it
would fly.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Brett]

"Cub Driver" > wrote:
|
| > Another good example is
| >the Brabazon.
|
| I'd forgotten that one. Did you know that it was the Brabazon
| Committee that laid down the specs for the plane that became the
| Comet? (The first prototype actually seated 20 passengers.)
|
| Be interesting to know how the how the Airbus evolved. Was that too a
| government committee?
|
| I suppose aircraft design is now more craft than art, whereas in the
| 1940s you built the plane first and then discovered whether or not it
| would fly.


The Brabazon committee proposed a series of different civil aircraft
types that would be needed in a post war world. One of them became the
Comet (high speed mail carrier), another became the Airspeed Ambassador
(the Brabazon IIA, a DC-3 replacement) and one became the Vickers
Viscount (the Brabazon IIB)..... The committee I believe specified the
target market that may or may not have ever existed in the post war
world.

[Keith Willshaw]

"Brett" > wrote in message
...
> "Cub Driver" > wrote:

>
>
> The Brabazon committee proposed a series of different civil aircraft
> types that would be needed in a post war world. One of them became the
> Comet (high speed mail carrier), another became the Airspeed Ambassador
> (the Brabazon IIA, a DC-3 replacement) and one became the Vickers
> Viscount (the Brabazon IIB)..... The committee I believe specified the
> target market that may or may not have ever existed in the post war
> world.
>
>

The Type III , for Empire and Commonwealth routes was of
course the Bristol Brittania

The Brabazon committee was put together in 1943 because it was
realised that the wartime agreement with the USA they transport
aircraft would be supplied from US manufacturing while Britain
concentrated on bomber and fighter production would leave
UK manufacturers at a disadvantage in the post war era.

Keith

[Brett]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote:
| "Brett" > wrote in message
| ...
| > "Cub Driver" > wrote:
|
| >
| >
| > The Brabazon committee proposed a series of different civil aircraft
| > types that would be needed in a post war world. One of them became
the
| > Comet (high speed mail carrier), another became the Airspeed
Ambassador
| > (the Brabazon IIA, a DC-3 replacement) and one became the Vickers
| > Viscount (the Brabazon IIB)..... The committee I believe specified
the
| > target market that may or may not have ever existed in the post war
| > world.
| >
| >
|
| The Type III , for Empire and Commonwealth routes was of
| course the Bristol Brittania

The Britannia wasn't designed and built to meet the Brabazon Committee
Type III (it was the only type that didn't generate an "airframe"). The
Britannia was designed and built to satisfy a later requirement
generated by BOAC.

| The Brabazon committee was put together in 1943 because it was
| realised that the wartime agreement with the USA they transport
| aircraft would be supplied from US manufacturing while Britain
| concentrated on bomber and fighter production would leave
| UK manufacturers at a disadvantage in the post war era.

And the two aircraft that can be considered commercial successes from
those committee meetings were the Vickers Viscount (Type IIB) and de
Havilland Dove (Type VB). A committee specification that resulted in two
commercial successes out of seven sounds like the committee was a lot
better at its job than history reports (its always the Bristol Brabazon
that gets the headline).

[Keith Willshaw]

"Brett" > wrote in message
...
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote:
> | "Brett" > wrote in message
> | ...
> | > "Cub Driver" > wrote:
> |
> | >
> | >
> | > The Brabazon committee proposed a series of different civil aircraft
> | > types that would be needed in a post war world. One of them became
> the
> | > Comet (high speed mail carrier), another became the Airspeed
> Ambassador
> | > (the Brabazon IIA, a DC-3 replacement) and one became the Vickers
> | > Viscount (the Brabazon IIB)..... The committee I believe specified
> the
> | > target market that may or may not have ever existed in the post war
> | > world.
> | >
> | >
> |
> | The Type III , for Empire and Commonwealth routes was of
> | course the Bristol Brittania
>
> The Britannia wasn't designed and built to meet the Brabazon Committee
> Type III (it was the only type that didn't generate an "airframe"). The
> Britannia was designed and built to satisfy a later requirement
> generated by BOAC.
>

Not really.

The Brittania design aka Bristol Type 175 was designed by Bristol
to meet the Brabazon III requirement. Ironically the Brabazon
committee cancelled this requirement fearing it would be
a costly failure and while the design was indeed put forward
to BOAC the order for the initial prototypes came from the
Ministry of Supply

> | The Brabazon committee was put together in 1943 because it was
> | realised that the wartime agreement with the USA they transport
> | aircraft would be supplied from US manufacturing while Britain
> | concentrated on bomber and fighter production would leave
> | UK manufacturers at a disadvantage in the post war era.
>
> And the two aircraft that can be considered commercial successes from
> those committee meetings were the Vickers Viscount (Type IIB) and de
> Havilland Dove (Type VB). A committee specification that resulted in two
> commercial successes out of seven sounds like the committee was a lot
> better at its job than history reports (its always the Bristol Brabazon
> that gets the headline).
>

Keith

[Brett]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote:
| "Brett" > wrote in message
| ...
| > "Keith Willshaw" > wrote:
| > | "Brett" > wrote in message
| > | ...
| > | > "Cub Driver" > wrote:
| > |
| > | >
| > | >
| > | > The Brabazon committee proposed a series of different civil
aircraft
| > | > types that would be needed in a post war world. One of them
became
| > the
| > | > Comet (high speed mail carrier), another became the Airspeed
| > Ambassador
| > | > (the Brabazon IIA, a DC-3 replacement) and one became the
Vickers
| > | > Viscount (the Brabazon IIB)..... The committee I believe
specified
| > the
| > | > target market that may or may not have ever existed in the post
war
| > | > world.
| > | >
| > | >
| > |
| > | The Type III , for Empire and Commonwealth routes was of
| > | course the Bristol Brittania
| >
| > The Britannia wasn't designed and built to meet the Brabazon
Committee
| > Type III (it was the only type that didn't generate an "airframe").
The
| > Britannia was designed and built to satisfy a later requirement
| > generated by BOAC.
| >
|
| Not really.

Yes really, the requirement and design came AFTER the war and it was
BOAC's design requirements that were embodied in specification 2/47.

| The Brittania design aka Bristol Type 175 was designed by Bristol
| to meet the Brabazon III requirement. Ironically the Brabazon
| committee cancelled this requirement fearing it would be
| a costly failure and while the design was indeed put forward
| to BOAC the order for the initial prototypes came from the
| Ministry of Supply

Because BOAC requirement was for an aircraft with an in service date of
1954 and BOAC was not prepared to risk "its future" on an order of at
least 25 production aircraft that the MoS originally demanded without
seeing it "fly" and your comments do not show that the Britannia was
designed to meet the Brabazon Type III airframe.

| > | The Brabazon committee was put together in 1943 because it was
| > | realised that the wartime agreement with the USA they transport
| > | aircraft would be supplied from US manufacturing while Britain
| > | concentrated on bomber and fighter production would leave
| > | UK manufacturers at a disadvantage in the post war era.
| >
| > And the two aircraft that can be considered commercial successes
from
| > those committee meetings were the Vickers Viscount (Type IIB) and de
| > Havilland Dove (Type VB). A committee specification that resulted in
two
| > commercial successes out of seven sounds like the committee was a
lot
| > better at its job than history reports (its always the Bristol
Brabazon
| > that gets the headline).

[vincent p. norris]

>Well, Air Travel was a different proposition to the Brits. The
>purpose of Imperial Airways/B.O.A.C. was to deliver Official Mail and
>the occasional King's Messenger to the far-flung reaches (But stopping
>at every villiage along the way) of the Empire. ..... fewer passengers than a
>DC-4. (A very well stocked Bar, no doubt, and servants up the
>Ying-Yang.

If I remember correctly what I read a long time ago, the Brits ran a
flying boat service pre-WW II from Capetown northward, up the Nile, to
London, and probably other lines as well. Huge boats, four or five
stories high, and they carried about eight passengers.

vince norris

[RichT]

"Bjørnar" > wrote in message
...
> Scott Ferrin > wrote in
> :
>
> > Wright Flyer
> > B-29 (nuked Japan)
> > U-2 (Cold War Symbol)
> > Concord
> > SR-71
> > Harrier (First real VTOL)
> > B-52 (if it ever *becomes* "history")
> > Me 262
> > X-1
> > X-15
> > KC-135
> >
> >
> > (there are lots of candidates such as the F-4, Mig-21, Zero, P-51,
> > etc. etc. but I think the above are unique and for that reason will
> > stand out)
>
> And, perhaps, the most noteworthy aircrafts in history?
>
> Spitfire (Battle of Britain)
> DC-3 Dakota (worlds workhorse and lifesaviour)
> Fokker Dr.1 (Red Baron)
>
>
> Regards...

Just refinding (if that's even a word) this group, In addition to the
tribute to the DC-3 (C-47) I'm glad to see someone point out that the F-4
Phantom should be included. Although my 4 years service in the AF in the
early 70's was primarily SR-71 EMR shop the F-4's were the ones making the
real headlines at the time in SEA. What a workhorse...And I say that with
affection because it saved so many of our guys lives on the ground. Also,
the Concorde - we now have one at the Museum of Flight - what a sight that
machine is and certainly served with distinction!
Thanks...
RichT

[Eric Moore]

There's an article on the most "historic" aircraft at:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/990865.asp?vts=120120031949&cp1=1

[Andrew Chaplin]

Brett wrote:
>
> And the two aircraft that can be considered commercial successes from
> those committee meetings were the Vickers Viscount (Type IIB) and de
> Havilland Dove (Type VB). A committee specification that resulted in two
> commercial successes out of seven sounds like the committee was a lot
> better at its job than history reports (its always the Bristol Brabazon
> that gets the headline).

I saw a Dove once. It was in a Lebanese air force hangar at Beirut,
and full of pigeon **** and bullet holes. Sad, really.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[Brett]

"Andrew Chaplin" > wrote:
| Brett wrote:
| >
| > And the two aircraft that can be considered commercial successes
from
| > those committee meetings were the Vickers Viscount (Type IIB) and de
| > Havilland Dove (Type VB). A committee specification that resulted in
two
| > commercial successes out of seven sounds like the committee was a
lot
| > better at its job than history reports (its always the Bristol
Brabazon
| > that gets the headline).
|
| I saw a Dove once. It was in a Lebanese air force hangar at Beirut,

The Lebanese air force had Devons :-)

| and full of pigeon **** and bullet holes. Sad, really.

[John Keeney]

"Frank Vaughan" > wrote in message
...
> In message >,
> (robert arndt) wrote:
>
>
> > 39. Airbus A.380
>
>
> How can you possibly list an aircraft that has never flown?
>
> I also believe that you should have included both the Lockheed
> C-130 and the Antonov heavy lifer (designation escapes me at the
> moment).

Does not being able to remember its name mean it's not even
"living in the present", let alone "history"?

[Andrew Chaplin]

"Brett" > wrote in message
...
> "Andrew Chaplin" > wrote:
> | Brett wrote:
> | >
> | > And the two aircraft that can be considered commercial successes
> from
> | > those committee meetings were the Vickers Viscount (Type IIB) and
de
> | > Havilland Dove (Type VB). A committee specification that resulted
in
> two
> | > commercial successes out of seven sounds like the committee was a
> lot
> | > better at its job than history reports (its always the Bristol
> Brabazon
> | > that gets the headline).
> |
> | I saw a Dove once. It was in a Lebanese air force hangar at Beirut,
>
> The Lebanese air force had Devons :-)

My bad... but, considered among the rest of my bads, not that bad. They
both look pretty much the same through a set of binos at seven Km, and
they were never on a Spotter Class List. :^)
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[Andrew Chaplin]

"Brett" > wrote in message
...
> "Andrew Chaplin" > wrote:
> | Brett wrote:
> | >
> | > And the two aircraft that can be considered commercial successes
> from
> | > those committee meetings were the Vickers Viscount (Type IIB) and
de
> | > Havilland Dove (Type VB). A committee specification that resulted
in
> two
> | > commercial successes out of seven sounds like the committee was a
> lot
> | > better at its job than history reports (its always the Bristol
> Brabazon
> | > that gets the headline).
> |
> | I saw a Dove once. It was in a Lebanese air force hangar at Beirut,
>
> The Lebanese air force had Devons :-)

'Ang on! According to this, it was Doves.
http://www.worldmiltair.co.uk/aircraft/aaaacaaakn.htm
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

[Brett]

"Andrew Chaplin" > wrote:
| "Brett" > wrote in message
| ...
| > "Andrew Chaplin" > wrote:
| > | Brett wrote:
| > | >
| > | > And the two aircraft that can be considered commercial successes
| > from
| > | > those committee meetings were the Vickers Viscount (Type IIB)
and
| de
| > | > Havilland Dove (Type VB). A committee specification that
resulted
| in
| > two
| > | > commercial successes out of seven sounds like the committee was
a
| > lot
| > | > better at its job than history reports (its always the Bristol
| > Brabazon
| > | > that gets the headline).
| > |
| > | I saw a Dove once. It was in a Lebanese air force hangar at
Beirut,
| >
| > The Lebanese air force had Devons :-)
|
| 'Ang on! According to this, it was Doves.
| http://www.worldmiltair.co.uk/aircraft/aaaacaaakn.htm

Putnam's de Havilland aircraft since 1909 (page 446, 1987 edition) and a
couple of other sources say they were Devons.

[Mary Shafer]

On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 04:49:28 GMT, Andrew Chaplin
> wrote:

> Brett wrote:
> >
> > And the two aircraft that can be considered commercial successes from
> > those committee meetings were the Vickers Viscount (Type IIB) and de
> > Havilland Dove (Type VB). A committee specification that resulted in two
> > commercial successes out of seven sounds like the committee was a lot
> > better at its job than history reports (its always the Bristol Brabazon
> > that gets the headline).
>
> I saw a Dove once. It was in a Lebanese air force hangar at Beirut,
> and full of pigeon **** and bullet holes. Sad, really.

I've flown a Dove. It was the one modified for Cranfield and later
sold to National Test Pilot School, which is where I flew it. Had a
bunch of FTE stations in the tube. Even had a trailing bomb for air
data. It might still be flying there.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

[Richard Brooks]

Frank Vaughan wrote:
> In message >, "John Keeney"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> "Frank Vaughan" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> In message >,
>>> (robert arndt) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> 39. Airbus A.380
>>>
>>>
>>> How can you possibly list an aircraft that has never flown?
>>>
>>> I also believe that you should have included both the Lockheed
>>> C-130 and the Antonov heavy lifer (designation escapes me at the
>>> moment).
>>
>> Does not being able to remember its name mean it's not even
>> "living in the present", let alone "history"?
>>
>
> No, it simply means that I was tired when I posted and was
> looking forward to a warm, helpful, compassionate posting that
> would help me remember. But thanks for trying.

Here you go Frank!

http://www.aviaphoto.ru/antonov/

It's either the An-124 or the An-225. Seeing the An-124 flying over
Oxfordshire, UK and banking into its final approach at Brize Norton is
breath taking!


Richard.

[Richard Brooks]

Frank Vaughan wrote:
> In message >, "John Keeney"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> "Frank Vaughan" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> In message >,
>>> (robert arndt) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> 39. Airbus A.380
>>>
>>>
>>> How can you possibly list an aircraft that has never flown?
>>>
>>> I also believe that you should have included both the Lockheed
>>> C-130 and the Antonov heavy lifer (designation escapes me at the
>>> moment).
>>
>> Does not being able to remember its name mean it's not even
>> "living in the present", let alone "history"?
>>
>
> No, it simply means that I was tired when I posted and was
> looking forward to a warm, helpful, compassionate posting that
> would help me remember. But thanks for trying.

Here you go Frank!

http://www.aviaphoto.ru/antonov/

It's either the An-124 or the An-225. Seeing the An-124 flying over
Oxfordshire, UK and banking into its final approach at Brize Norton is
breath taking!


Richard.

[Peter Twydell]

In article >, Dave Kearton
> writes
>"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> What??? No Spirit of St. Louis???
>>
>>
>>
>> Arthur Kramer
>> 344th BG 494th BS
>> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
>> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
>> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>>
>
>
>The difficulty I have with the Spirit of St Louis is that it's a US national
>icon and that there's bound to be a fair amount of emotion tied up in
>defending it.
>
>
>Looking a little more dispassionately at the issue, I think Lindberg should
>be remembered long after the plane fades into the dim dark past, as it was
>really HIS achievement, the plane just had to be there.
>
>
>By the time Lucky Lindy made the crossing, he was (what ?) the 39th pilot
>to cross the pond - but the first to do it alone. Given what he went
>through and the number of pilots who disappeared while trying to do the same
>makes _Lindberg's_ achievement notable.
>
He was the 92nd person to fly the Atlantic, but I don't know how many
before him were pilots. Take a look at this:
http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mtransatlantic.html
>
and the book "The 91 Before Lindbergh" by Peter Allen.

>The plane that seems to have avoided the Usenet radar is the Vickers Vimy
>that Alcock and Brown used to FIRST fly across the Atlantic.
>
See the above article.
1-6 (May 1919): Lieutenant Commander Albert Read of the U.S. Navy and
his crew (Breese, Hinton, Rhoads, Rodd, and Stone) of the Curtiss NC-4
flew from Newfoundland to Portugal via the Azores.
>
Alcock and Beown were the first to fly across *non-stop*

>While single crew crossings are fairly commonplace these days, they're
>dwarfed in numbers by the multi crew crossings that occur in their hundreds
>daily, unescorted and unrefuelled - as pioneered by Alcock and Brown in
>June 1919.
>
>
I've only done it 6 times, surrounded by a couple of hundred of other
people on each occasion.
>
>
>
>
>
>Cheers
>
>Dave Kearton
>
>

--
Peter

Ying tong iddle-i po!

[Scott Ferrin]

On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 22:17:14 -0700, Frank Vaughan
> wrote:

>In message >, "Richard Brooks"
> wrote:
>
>> Frank Vaughan wrote:
>> > In message >, "John Keeney"
>> > > wrote:
>> >
>
>> > No, it simply means that I was tired when I posted and was
>> > looking forward to a warm, helpful, compassionate posting that
>> > would help me remember. But thanks for trying.
>>
>> Here you go Frank!
>>
>> http://www.aviaphoto.ru/antonov/
>>
>> It's either the An-124 or the An-225. Seeing the An-124 flying over
>> Oxfordshire, UK and banking into its final approach at Brize Norton is
>> breath taking!
>>
>>
>> Richard.
>
>Thank you Richard. I saw one of those puppies parked on a taxiway
>in Denver one and wished that a 747 has been nearby for a size
>comparison.
>
>I suspect that it has carved a unique roll in aviation -- perhaps
>as the first modern Russian aircraft to have a worldwide
>peacetime role (I'm excluding the former soviet puppets that use
>its pax airlines).

What's really surprising was seeing one at a US airbase in
Afghanistan. Not personally of course but the USAF web site had a
photo of a guy on the ground guiding in an AN-124

[Keith Willshaw]

"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 22:17:14 -0700, Frank Vaughan
> > wrote:

>
> What's really surprising was seeing one at a US airbase in
> Afghanistan. Not personally of course but the USAF web site had a
> photo of a guy on the ground guiding in an AN-124
>
>

The British forces have been chartering them for heavy lift for some
years now.

Keith

[Ad absurdum per aspera]

You'll probably get interestingly different sets of answers, with some
overlap, from various angles, such as pilots;
generals/admirals/military historians; social historians; businessmen;
technology historians; and members of the public (with many people
integrating one or more of these perspectives, of course).

Here are a few thoughts of mine, with apologies for a US-centric
perspective and with no claim on being all-inclusive or even
necessarily right. Herewith some breakthrough technologies, some
pinnacles of known art, and some that were just perfect for their
time... as well as a few notable individual aircraft.

Here I omit subsystems, weapons, unmanned platforms (despite a great
temptation to take a guess at something from the UCAV arena) and
anything of primarily an orbital nature.


* WRIGHT FLYER, hopefully to be remembered as an *engineering*
achievement by a couple of people who genuinely knew what they were
doing, the popular image involving bicycle mechanics notwithstanding.


* FOKKER TRIPLANE. "Drat you, Red Baron." I'd bet that this is *the*
visual image of a WWI fighter that pops into most people's minds,
even if the words they think of are "Spad" or "Sopwith Camel."


* CURTISS "JENNY". Of no importance in the war, but of great
importance in the peace, at least in the US -- important in
establishing the nascent notion of airmail as a realistic proposition
(with concomitant strides in air navigation), and important as the
first glimpse of a plane, and maybe the first hop, for who knows how
many people, sometimes creating a dream that never died.


* SPIRIT OF ST. LOUIS. The Atlantic had been crossed before, but
single-engine and solo really captured the popular imagination
remarkably.


* FORD TRIMOTOR. The idea of 12 passengers and a stewardess who also
has to be qualified as a nurse may not be awfully reassuring to the
white-knuckled flyer accustomed to jets, but the "Tin Goose" is widely
credited with making air travel a commercial proposition.



* HINDENBURG. Not the first aviation tragedy, of course, but the
first big one and the first witnessed by the media. The "O the
humanity" radio announcement and the picture of it half-burned in
midair are doubtless recognized by many people who know little if
anything else about the long-ago heyday of the zeppelin.


* DC-3. Hit a real sweet spot in size, performance, and operating
cost for
the airlines of the day, then served memorably in the war... and kept
going.



* P-51. The arguments about which was the best fighter of the war
and/or the propeller era will never end, but there's no doubt that it
was an excellent one -- and that it could take its bit of the war all
the way and back again with a fight in between.



* F-86. In an era when technology was evolving so fast that a few
years made a huge difference, this was the right fighter at the right
time.



* B-52. For better or worse, the symbol as well as a pre-eminent tool
of US will to win the Cold War and to project power worldwide.



* C-130. Won't win any beauty contests, but seems likely to remain in
service and probably in production until termites evolve to consume
aluminum.


* SR-71. Looked like a study-hall fantasy that actually got built,
with performance to match. Not exactly the most versatile jet in the
inventory, but did its one thing pretty much unimpeachably for a long
time.


* LEAR JET. Not the first, biggest, etc. bizjet, but visually iconic
and with enough range to get from Carly Simon to Sheryl Crow nonstop.



* 707. The first practical passenger jet, with a similarly
revolutionary military cousin...


* F-111. Alas, its place in history is mostly that of a negative
example in specifying requirements and managing projects,
overshadowing how it evolved into a useful and long-serving aircraft.



* Huey. Not just important, but to a couple of generations, the very
image of what a helo *sounds* like.



* DC-9. Short-haul jet travel for the masses, and (in a much evolved
form) still in production.



* 747. An audacious business move as well as a technological
achievement.



* Concorde. It may have been the answer to a question no market was
asking, but what a glorious answer! The notion of England and various
European countries collaborating on an aerospace project has also of
course been revisited a number of times to great profit.



* Harrier. Long after the arguments about its combat utility and
survivability have ended, the "jump jet" image will linger.



* F-15. Nothing exceeds like excess. Thankfully untested in the big
war against first-rank opponents it was designed for.



* F-117A. A cloud no bigger than a man's hand on the horizon (and not
on the radar scope at all) for the titanium corner-reflector era of
combat aircraft.



Future bets (with the caveat that there will be so few types they'll
all be memorable): A380 win or lose; JSF; 7E7.


Thoughts?
--Joe