Which aircraft will live in history forever?

"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

"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! ;-)

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

"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.

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

"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

(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