|
A heavier than air flying machine - aka: an 'airplane' ;)
|
I believe that the X-1 was a reworked M52 |
If you amalgamate Fox 3's top 2/3 with Roadster's I think you have your answer.
Interesting that arguably no jet fighter has changed the world. Even in the case of the Spitfire and Hurricane, you have fighters that took part in world determining events...but were actually merely a stepping stone in the line of thought that you could mount air to air and air to mud weaponry on a tactical size aircraft. I'd probably admit the P-51D managed it...'Now the bomber genuinely will always get through because we've got OCA all the way there and back'. Plenty of aircraft can lay claim to dramatically increasing the capability shown by something else that had already changed the world, without changing the world in so doing. Chinook is a great example. Absolutely staggering capability but no world changer. As has already been pointed out. The world changer was the ability to move troops and materiel around the battlefield without touching the ground - provided I think by the UH-1. The Chinook simply, but magnificently, exploits an already changed world. Enjoying the British nostalgia, but considering the world outside the RAF, FAA and AAC I don't think the Bucc, Harrier family or Tornado lineage actually changed anything. Enjoy your weekends all. |
Orca,
Of course, these lists depend alot on your point of view and what criteria of "change" we use.:) However, I do think that the Me262 was the "jet fighter" that changed that branch of aviation. Also, as I have said, the Tornado IDS deserves its place due to its integrated all weather, LL, nav/attack system which certainly led to huge change, IMO!;) OAP |
Anything made by de Havilland :ok:
Tiger Moth, Mosquito, Vampire, Comet, Venom, Heron, Trident ... and the Chipmunk, Beaver, Otter, Dash from DHC :) |
I don't disagree with anything you've said old chap. ME-262 changed a lot within jet fighters. How ever it appeared in a world where nazi Germany was being put to the sword, and went out of service when the deed had been done. The technology was then used in a branch of aviation that has changed beyond belief, from Sopwith Pup to F-22, without actually changing the world at any point.
Still not convinced about the IDS, just seems like another bomber trying to get through to me. Having said that I think we all agree - fighter pilots make movies, bomber pilots*, airline pilots**, and helicopter pilots*** make history. (If I tidy that up a bit it might make a decent quote!) Best to all,;) Orca. *=plus that other chap/ chaps in the 'over seated' variants, plus ground crew and enablers. **=plus whole set up from check in to G&T delivery team. ***=plus navigator, observer, crewman, diver...how many people does it take FFS! |
Anson TX219 - certainly changed my world......hat, coat..........big grin
|
Hey Wander, I am guessing that you joined the mile high club in this Anson!
On serious note going back to the OP, I am not sure how the SR71 "changed the world" I have no doubt that the technology was ahead of its time and laid the path for many things to follow in materials, aerodynamics and propulsion. I say this having spent several hours in the company of Rich Graham. Without this aircraft would World War 3 have been over and done with by now? I love the Mosquito as an example of exploiting available materials at the time and the resources (woodworkers) to build them. TSR 2 laid the groundwork for Tonka systems according to John Forbat's book. Now this aircraft did have an impact on how we view Politics of aircraft procurement in Britain (probably not the world). I believe Bell X1 flew only a matter of months after M52 was due to take to the air. Again Politics came to the fore. Would the world be any different had it been the other way round. For me the Comet and hence Nimrod had the greatest impact on my life. Many hours burning the midnight oil. I must not forget the C130 or Coff would have me excommunicated from PRuNe I think the next thing that will change the world will be Skylon. |
"Planes" is a bit limiting for me.
The Montgolfier balloon that flew 120 years before the Wright brothers seems to have been a game-changer that started it all off. But the Boeing/North American/Douglas/Grumman -built Saturn V probably had as big a global impact as any other flying machine before or since. LZ129 Hindenburg is another non-plane that will live in infamy for a long time too. |
Re the Saturn V I saw a great interview with John Young of Apollo XVI in which he was describing the tremendous shaking and vibration of the launch vehicle at lift off. 'You are reminded' he said ' that you are sitting on a machine built by the lowest bidder'.
|
Contemporary aircraft that WILL change the world?
Rather than looking at history, what current aircraft will be viewed by future Ppruners as game changers?
Boeing Dreamliner? F-35? V-22? |
Sorry TS, none of your list.:uhoh:
OAP |
I would definitely say the Vulcan didn't change anything; last of that generation, only a few dozen compared hundreds of B47 and several hundred B52.
The 707/KC135 OTOH Also for practical and comfortable passenger flight, the Stratocruiser. |
OAP, have you flown in a 787?
For a future aircraft I think it stands a chance. Ok, it has a few bells and whistles that are more glitzy than necessary and seat size and pitch is variable, but I have to say it beat the T7 hands down. |
But has it changed the world?
|
Originally Posted by orca
(Post 9083631)
But has it changed the world?
What will change the world is a quantum change in speed. Like Concorde, but for the masses. Better comfort, cheaper prices, all well and good, but not a game-changer. Concorde was quick, but inaccessible. My sole regret of 46 years of life is that I did not fly on her. If London to New York for the masses becomes 3 hrs or better, that will change the world. PS- Thanks for the "vote" on my list. No, the Chinook doesn't belong there in general, but personally, it does. Then again, I don't imagine there are many people who flew Concorde that had been on a Wokka. And I was fortunate enough to fly them like other people take busses. Like I do Delta 717/737/757/767/A319/MD-88/90s these days. |
I don't think the Bucc, Harrier family or Tornado lineage actually changed anything |
Few of the aircraft listed have really changed the world, not even the magnificent Concorde. I suggest the 737 and 747 qualify as they've genuinely opened up the world for ordinary people. But in 100 yrs if anyone were able to name just one flying machine from this era it would be Saturn V.
|
The Harrier did change the world. Without it the UK would not have been able to retake the Falklands. The political and military repercussions of that were pivotal at a delicate point in the Cold War.
|
FWIW, in chronological order:
Wright 1905 Flyer https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/pr...c=w488-h302-nc The first practical aircraft Junkers F13 https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/pr...Q=w510-h289-nc The first all metal, low wing, cantilever aircraft. Boeing 314 Clipper https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/pr...R=w497-h296-nc The first true intercontinental passenger aircraft. Boeing B-29 https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/pr...w=w512-h288-nc The first nuclear-capable aircraft. Also the first with a pressurized compartment for the flight crew. MiG-15 https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/pr...M=w547-h269-nc Made in more numbers than any jet aircraft in history Sikorsky S-55 https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/pr...Q=w444-h331-nc The first successful multi-role helicopter Cessna 172 https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/pr...J=w467-h315-nc The most successful mass produced light aircraft ever built Learjet 23 https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/pr...g=w452-h165-nc The first 'personal jet' aircraft Boeing 747 https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/pr...4=w463-h317-nc The first and most successful wide-bodied jet airliner General Atomics MQ-1 Predator https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/pr...w=w525-h280-nc The first successful UAV. |
F35. The aircraft that brought the western world's defences to its knees.
|
Originally Posted by Petit Plateau
The Harrier did change the world. Without it the UK would not have been able to retake the Falklands. The political and military repercussions of that were pivotal at a delicate point in the Cold War.
|
Not exactly "World changing" though.:rolleyes:
|
Without the Harrier the UK would have had to stick with proper carriers with Phantoms and Buccaneers. The would have changed the Falklands War a bit. |
Without the Harrier the UK would have had to stick with proper carriers with Phantoms and Buccaneers. The would have changed the Falklands War a bit. I'd suggest that without the Harrier, there would have been no UK carrier capability in 1982. But 'world changing'? Not really. |
Junkers F13 Other airframes that should be in the list. George Cayley Glider - First wingborne flight. Sikorsky’s Russky Vityaz - First large multi engined aircraft. |
Well I just watched this weeks episode on the DC-3. Again, well done - following the progression from the Boeing 247 to the DC-1/DC-2 (my memory hasn't failed me yet - the DC-1 was a prototype while the -2 was the production version) and how that lead to the DC-3. Mainly stuff I already knew but still interesting with lots of personal touches (interviews with some of the original "air hostesses" from the 1930's were interesting).
I've found the debates about what "airplanes" (or 'aero planes') belong on the list to be interesting (the title does specify "planes", so while I think the Saturn V was the most impressive engineering feat of my lifetime, I don't think rockets or rotorcraft belong on this list). Much depends on how one chooses to define the criteria - for example while the Boeing 247 was revolutionary, the DC-2/3 made it work. Similarly (at least in my book), the Comet was revolutionary, but the 707 made it work. Hence the DC-2/3 makes the cut, and I'd rate the 707 above the Comet. All that being said, the previews indicate next week will be the A380 :confused: I'll get some popcorn :E |
I wouldn't say the A380 is a game-changer. Actually, I find it mildly surprising that it took 30 years or so for either Boeing or Airbus to take the 747 idea and extend the upper deck all the way. It's an ugly mofo too.
I think we're probably 15-20 years from the return of supersonic or even hypersonic travel, and that will be the next game changer. I might just fit a flight in before I shuffle off to the business lounge in the sky. |
Not a "plane" but an aircraft. The Bell 47. The first practical battlefield helicopter. A true 3 dimensional Land Rover, simple, reliable and economical. Hell, even I could fly one!
|
Without the Harrier the UK would have had to stick with proper carriers with Phantoms and Buccaneers. The would have changed the Falklands War a bit.
- Yes it would have changed the war a bit. The war would not have taken place at all. The UK made the decision to not build CVA01, and then not to replace Ark Royal etc prior to knowing that the Sea Harrier was viable. Then the RN basically had to smuggle the Invincibles through the budget process. So no Harrier = no attempt to retake Falklands. But 'world changing'? Not really. - Yes it was world changing. It was the point at which the Soviet Union realised that the UK needed to be counted as well as the US, in both military and political terms. That in turn caused them to think again about the resolve of the remainder of the Western allies. On the other side of the equation it led to a renewed confidence in the allies within the USA, most especially and directly between Reagan-Thatcher at a personal level, but running up and down the whole system. That understanding that the allies were in it together was a part of the Reagan approach to ending the Cold War. So yes, I do argue that the Harrier was world changing. It was a very direct link between what was militarily possible in one conflict, and then politically possible in another. And ending the Cold War definitely changed world. I'm not saying that the Harrier was solely responsible, but I am saying that the Harrier was the crucial enabler for the successful Falklands campaign and that the consequences of that were very significant in the Cold War context. Regards, pp |
It was the point at which the Soviet Union realised that the UK needed to be counted as well as the US, in both military and political terms. Love the Harrier though. |
George Cayley Glider - First wingborne flight with the world's first airborne coachman on board. George did not fancy it himself !
|
Melmoth,
In many ways the Harrier deserves inclusion simply as a technical product. But I think the case is stronger because of the wider political and military results of its existence, that otherwise would not have happened at all. Therefore it's world-changing nature is because of the wider political/strategic consequences. Some quotes are useful: .........A second major effect was a reaffirmation of the special relationship between the US and UK. .... but the more obvious result was the common alignment of Britain and the USA in a more confrontational foreign policy against the Soviet bloc, sometimes known as the Second Cold War. .........Militarily, the Falklands conflict remains the largest air-naval combat operation between modern forces since the end of the Second World War. .......... For the Soviet and Warsaw Pact militaries, the Falklands War forced a re-examination of their estimates of the quality of Western troops, and particularly how well all-volunteer forces compared with conscripted forces. The Soviets became aware that the British relied heavily on the quality and training of its personnel (from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afterm..._Falklands_War) For the United States, there were lessons on three distinct levels... One level was that of grand alliance strategy. Before the war broke out, Americans tended to assume that they led an alliance of completely like-minded governments against the Soviets; all other governments were neutral, leaning one way or another. ... A second level was political. In 1982, many in the Soviet leadership believed that the West had lost so much of its morale that its end was inevitable, and perhaps even near. The Soviets themselves were in trouble, but they thought they could survive. The Argentinians clearly thought much the same thing about the British....... British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher didn’t agree. Like U.S. President Ronald Reagan, she did not think the West was dying, let alone dead. ........ In effect, Thatcher saw the Falklands War as the great test: Were the British locked into decline, or did they have a future? ....... The Soviet leadership was shocked. The West was still a serious threat. The Soviets found themselves taking Western initiatives, such as Reagan’s “Star Wars,” very seriously indeed. Thatcher’s was not, of course, the only demonstration of Western resolve; at about the same time, the Russians found it impossible to intimidate NATO governments that had decided to accept the deployment of U.S. Pershing and Tomahawk missiles on their soil. They, in turn, were probably much encouraged by Thatcher’s example. ..The impact on the Soviets cannot be underestimated. In 1982-83, the Soviets were increasingly aware that they had been caught up in a new revolution in military technology based on micro-computers. In the Falklands, the British fleet deployed far more computing power, for example, than the Soviets had in all their fleets. The Soviet problem was that their economy had been contracting for years. It did not have the stretch it needed to compete on these new terms with the West, particularly while continuing to pour out existing types of weapons. Within a few years, a new Soviet leader would be chosen specifically because he promised to clean up computer production: Mikhail Gorbachev. His attempt to solve the Soviet economic problem destroyed the Soviet Union. ...The third level, the one usually emphasized, was tactical. The Falklands War was fascinating because it was a miniature version of the war U.S. naval strategists thought they might have to fight. With their missile-armed strike aircraft and their submarines, the Argentinians were a sort of small-scale version of the threat the Soviets posed against U.S. naval strike forces in the Norwegian Sea. The British task force was a small-scale version of a U.S. striking force trying to go north, to execute the evolving U.S. maritime strategy. The Argentinians had to do much what the Soviets had to do: They had to detect, track, and attack the approaching British task force. Ultimately the British had to land troops in the face of Argentinian air and ground forces. ....If the war actually pitted a miniature U.S. strike fleet against a miniature Soviet force, the success of the British showed that the full-scale strike fleet had an excellent chance of carrying out its mission, a far better chance than critics of the evolving U.S. Maritime Strategy imagined. That mattered. The Maritime Strategy greatly raised the price the Soviets would have had to pay to prepare for a war, at a time when they were badly stretched. The need for a stretch, not just for naval but for other military purposes, forced the Soviets to take measures to change their economy and their political system. It turned out that the system did not have much stretch in it, either – and the edifice collapsed. The Falklands War mattered because in important ways it was the beginning of the end of the Cold War. from The Falklands War in Retrospect | Defense Media Network Regards, pp |
No doubt the Harrier was a technical marvel PP, but the technology developed for that particular aircraft (and no other) has hardly changed the world, in my opinion.
that otherwise would not have happened at all. I don't dispute any of that, but in order for the Harrier to have been a 'world changing' aircraft then none of the post-Falklands history of the world would have happened without it, and we'd still be squaring up to the Soviet Union in a Cold War that never ended. Sorry, but I don't buy that at all. Still love the Harrier though. |
Ok. World changing effect of the harrier. It allowed nations that couldn't afford proper aircraft carriers to have fixed wing fast jet naval air arms at sea.
|
And that changed the world, how?
|
Like the 747 allowed people to go to Barbados instead of Bognor....
|
Right you are, an aircraft that allowed Spain, India, Italy, and Thailand (no disrespect intended) to fly off the decks of ships for no other reason than they could had the same world changing effect as the passenger aircraft that arguably did more to revolutionise mass transportation than any other.
Dear lord. |
Melmoth, quite a lot that happens at sea is important in the affairs of man on land even if landlubbers can't see it, regards, pp
|
Just applying your theory to the 747 rather than the Harrier.
It may be a great aircraft, but all it did was allow airlines to throw more people in the air at the same time for less cost per head. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 09:50. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.