Which aircraft will live in history forever?

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

(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...

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

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

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

"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.

"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

"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).

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