25 most influential aircraft - new book.

#21
Well bollocks.
Next time I won't post any links.
Oh, don't do that - I'd probably not have seen the thing for months, and I suspect the same would be true for most other Arrsers.

I was only expressing a view on what I took to be some of the flaws and omissions in the book, in the same vein as posts which had preceded mine, after all (including your observations). As
 
#22
Oh, don't do that - I'd probably not have seen the thing for months, and I suspect the same would be true for most other Arrsers.

I was only expressing a view on what I took to be some of the flaws and omissions in the book, in the same vein as posts which had preceded mine, after all (including your observations). As
Give it a whirl.
I'm finding it fascinating.
 
#24
It killed a shed load of pilots also
The downward firing ejection seat didn't help
Iven Knicheloe the test pilot was killed flying a routine chase after he had to roll inverted to try and bang out of one.


And from the design race that led to 'the widow maker', one of the designs that was rejected, ended up with a different fusalage and engines, and became The Lear Jet, probably one of the most successful small exec jets ever produced.....fooking small inside though.

1521477313866.png
 
#25
Unfortunately, quite a lot of people who've met Yeager wish that he had given his life in the name of aviation progress (rather than, say, Milburn Apt)...

Even allowing for the inevitable (and in many ways understandable, given how damn big the US aircraft industry has been for the last 80+ years), the list looks flawed. The Fokker Eindekker wasn't the first fighter aircraft; it was the first to have interrupter gear; the B-17 gets wheeled out (as usual) when the B-29 and the Lanacaster have an arguably greater claim to influence; the omission of the F-86 is quite remarkable (I know they were space-limited, but...); the B-47 was indeed influential as the first swept wing bomber (if you ignore the Ju-287, which was the first - with forward sweep, and one actually flew), but to put it in ahead of the B-52, which is going to get to 75 years of service and quite probably 100); the omission of the Hurricane is understandable, but they could've fudged that. I would have thought that with 36,000 built, the Il-2 might get a mention as well...


As for trainers, you'd have thought that no-one other than Americans had built any - leaving the Avro 504 out of the lists (particularly since it was one of the key trainers for the US Air Service at the start...) when used by over 30 nations seems a bit odd...

The book should actually have been the 25 most influential American aircraft (so they could've squeezed in a couple more), rather than one where a few non-American aircraft have been slotted in on the grounds that saying that all 25 were American was a bit parochial...
DH.106 Comet - the world's first jet airliner. (Mea culpa - and thanks MOzanne)
 
Last edited:
#26
#27
You have to ask 'why?' I mean nothing to bump into if you go up, the hard ground below if you go the other way. Why risk not being high enough?
 
#29
You have to ask 'why?' I mean nothing to bump into if you go up, the hard ground below if you go the other way. Why risk not being high enough?
Nothing to bump into as you go up, except the vertical stabilizer which, on a something like the F104, is moving toward you pretty rapidly!

Additionally, the F104 and the Soviet types shown were all meant to operate at medium to high level, so hitting the ground on ejection wasn't an issue until NATO air forces started using the 104 at low level.
 
Last edited:
#30
...the F104 and the Soviet types shown were all meant to operate at medium to high level, so hitting the ground on ejection wasn't an issue until NATO air forces started using the 104 at low level.
Even medium and high altitude types have to take-off and land, which is where a disproportionate number of accidents occur. Unfortunately, compromises in crew safety were more common in the 50s as technology struggled to keep up with performance.

Regards,
MM
 
#33
Or George Cayley who would have beaten Wilbur and Orville by a century or so if he’d had a petrol engine.
Possibly, but the Wright Brothers, frustrated y inexplicable failures were forced to confront the fact that almost everything that was held to be true about aerodynamics in the 1890's/1900's was wrong to some degree. They had to design from the ground up using empirical testing (wind-tunnel and all) to get a good result
 
#34
Possibly, but the Wright Brothers, frustrated y inexplicable failures were forced to confront the fact that almost everything that was held to be true about aerodynamics in the 1890's/1900's was wrong to some degree. They had to design from the ground up using empirical testing (wind-tunnel and all) to get a good result
image.jpeg



Iirc he was developing an IC engine running on gunpowder, but couldn't get the fuel feed sorted.
 
Last edited:
#35
The Russians have also used a conveyor belt in one of their larger aircraft, to send the crew out thru a bottom hatch which opened outward and forward as a windbreak.......they also deploy their paras from the front doors of the Il 76s.
 
#36
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
Oyibo Current Affairs, News and Analysis 21
A Gunners 41
Murphy Aviation 13

Similar threads