DrExotica From United States, joined Aug 2004, 161 posts, RR: 0 Posted (1 month 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 12692 times:
In the current Smithsonian Air & Space magazine, there was a nice column that discussed the ten aircraft (commercial and military) that most changed the world. Certainly a fun read. Here they are in the order provided in the article (chronologically):
In the article, they note that this is not a list of trailblazers (e.g., the de Havilland Comet), nor a list of aircraft that represent the greatest advancements in aeronautics (e.g., Bell X-1), but rather aircraft that "had an impact beyond the realm of things that fly, that reached the larger culture and touched even those who aren't frequent fliers or connected to aviation."
Be sure to grab a copy of this month's Air & Space - it is a great one.
Contrails From United States, joined Oct 2000, 1366 posts, RR: 2 Reply 3, posted (1 month 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 12632 times:
It omitted the 727, so it's not much of a list imo.
It was the 727 that introduced the common man and woman to flying. If the 727 doesn't fall under ". . . reached the larger culture and touched even those who aren't frequent fliers. . . " I don't know what does.
PGNCS From United States, joined Apr 2007, 716 posts, RR: 1 Reply 5, posted (1 month 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 12414 times:
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 4): Any list without the DC-3 is worthless. In war time and peacetime it has had more impact on aviation and the world at large than any other aircraft.
I have to agree, but then again these type of lists are pointless and arbitrary reflecting the author's vision and not much more. I am quite sure that most of the members here could have come up with equally valid and interesting lists, though the DC-3 does seem to be a fairly obvious candidate.
Ikramerica From United States, joined May 2005, 14534 posts, RR: 41 Reply 6, posted (1 month 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 12384 times:
Quoting PGNCS (Reply 5): I have to agree, but then again these type of lists are pointless and arbitrary reflecting the author's vision and not much more.
The Smithsonian is more than an 'author' though. Then again, they refused to acknowledge the Wright Bros for a long time due to financial and political reasons...
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
Amberair732 From Austria, joined Apr 2006, 702 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (1 month 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 12324 times:
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 4): Any list without the DC-3 is worthless
Agreed. The same could be said for the Boeing 707, Lockheed C130 Hercules, Concorde & McDonnell Douglas F-15. I'm sure there are many others that A-netters will think worthy as well. I personally find this 'Top ten of ---------' fashion very tiresome & would have expected an institution of the Smithsonian's standing to have been a little more imaginitive than to stick to such a tired idea.
I can't die yet. I haven't done what I was sent here to do.
RFields5421 From United States, joined Jul 2007, 1128 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (1 month 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 12309 times:
While I agree about the DC-3, the F13 came 15 years earlier - and as I understand the information - was the first designed passenger aircraft.
The DC-3 certainly made passenger traffic possible and economically viable to much of the world, but the DC-3 was an enhancement of previous technology rather than a revolutionary concept.
The F13 said that people can fly as passengers.
Personally I find the lack of a early jet transport interesting. And I'd have put the Piper Cub in place of the C-172.
But those 10 were all aircraft which had a profound impact upon the world, not just the aviation world.
PGNCS From United States, joined Apr 2007, 716 posts, RR: 1 Reply 10, posted (1 month 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 12089 times:
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 6): The Smithsonian is more than an 'author' though. Then again, they refused to acknowledge the Wright Bros for a long time due to financial and political reasons...
No question about it; your point is well taken. Having said that, in the end regardless of who or what institution comes up with a list of this nature, it is a subjective list shaped by the judgments and biases of the author or authors. I'm not saying it's devoid of value, rather that there are other equally well-reasoned lists available.
PanAm747 From United States, joined Feb 2004, 3614 posts, RR: 5 Reply 11, posted (1 month 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 12062 times:
Quote: Any list without the DC-3 is worthless. In war time and peacetime it has had more impact on aviation and the world at large than any other aircraft.
Agreed. Like the Model T - it wasn't the most revolutionary, just a refinement of existing technology. But its mass production ensured that air travel could be made available for all.
Like everyone else, the 707/DC-8/Comet trio needs to be included - a photo-finish of the race to be the first jet passenger plane. Ironically, first place Comet was the first to be retired, followed soon after by second place 707 (excepting the U.S. Military), and the DC-8 model still soldiers on in many places (different variants, of course).
Not including the Concorde/TU-144 is unacceptable. And not having the Bell X-1 (Glamorous Glynnis) is like a history of space development without mentioning the Apollo missions.
And how about the SR-71 Blackbird?
As for the Enola Gay, the list should ONLY be the "type" of aircraft, not a particular one, unless it is really the only one of its type, such as "The Spirit Of St. Louis".
Pan Am:The World's Most Experienced Airline - P(oor) S(ailor's) A(irline): San Diego's Hometown Airline-Catch Our Smile!
For modern large commerical transport aircraft I would give a single place to the B707 just ahead of the Comet. All other commerical transport aircraft were only evolutions of the B707.
Ikramerica From United States, joined May 2005, 14534 posts, RR: 41 Reply 13, posted (1 month 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 12012 times:
Quoting RFields5421 (Reply 8): The DC-3 certainly made passenger traffic possible and economically viable to much of the world, but the DC-3 was an enhancement of previous technology rather than a revolutionary concept.
The list was not intended to be about the "first of a type" or anything, but about planes that changed the world of aviation and the world at large. The DC3 did that. There is no argument that can be made to exclude it that holds water. It has flown in every conceivable circumstance, in every country, over the span of 75 years, and still is used today. Over 13,000 were built including military variants and Russian and Japanese copies. It changed the nature of how humans traveled this earth.
It is arguably the MOST significant aircraft ever built, and thus being left off the list entirely makes the list worthless...
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
Commavia From United States, joined Apr 2005, 5874 posts, RR: 38 Reply 14, posted (1 month 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 11952 times:
I have long contended that two airlines that absolutely deserve to be towards the top of this list are the Douglas DC-3 and Boeing 737. Both were revolutionary for their time and unparalleled in their longevity (the latter particularly in the 737's case).
To me, both of those aircraft - the DC-3 and 737 - truly changed the way the world flew.
CV990Coronado From South Africa, joined Nov 2007, 29 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (1 month 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 11772 times:
As so many have already mentioned the DC3/C47 is a definite. I would also think an early jetliner probably the 707 or the Comet. But the DC 3 as Ikramerica said "Any list without the DC-3 is worthless"
Whappeh From United States, joined Mar 2006, 1033 posts, RR: 1 Reply 21, posted (1 month 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 12136 times:
Quoting Mayor (Reply 24): And not the F-86? scratchchin
Either one of them. Neither one did anything that ground breaking, as far as I know, that other aircraft before them hadn't already done. Swept wings where already discovered, jet propulsion was too. They weren't the first mass produced jet fighters... neither one of them makes any sense, least of all the MiG.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States, joined Aug 2004, 161 posts, 
From Canada, joined May 2006, 4726 posts, 
From Austria, joined Apr 2006, 702 posts, 
From Norway, joined Aug 2006, 651 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2007, 153 posts, 
From South Africa, joined Nov 2007, 29 posts, 
From Cayman Islands, joined May 2005, 804 posts, 