It's amazing how many people get worked up over things like this. . . so first, let's everyone take a deep breath.
Now, for starters, let's look at the title of the list: "10 Aircraft That Changed Aviation
." So for all of you complaining about the military aicraft on the list - learn how to read better. Aviation is just that, aviation. It incorporates all types of flying craft. Interesting that no one mentioned the lack of helicopters on this list. . .
Next, let's also forget about adding anything too new. Maybe newer aircraft (A320, 777, etc.) will change aviation, maybe it won't. It's too early to tell yet (can you tell I'm an historian?
As for those fans of the Concorde or the Tu-144 - did they really change aviation? They applied an accomplished feat to commercial aviation - and failed to reach even a minority of the flying public. They may be cool to learn about and spot at an airport, but change aviation
? Come on. (And I personally love these aircraft - particularly the Valkeryie) The same can be said for an aircraft like the Harrier. It is an awesome aircraft, but in no way did it change
aviation as we know it.
Finally, the "starters." I will admit that there is a good and valid argument for aircraft that were the first to do something, even though they eventually failed as projects. For instance, the above mentioned DC-1 as being the precursor to the DC-3, or the Comet pioneering jet travel for the masses before the 707. However, if one were to take this making of such a list seriously, can we include these aircraft? No, because they were not the designs that actually
changed their particular segment of aviation, they were merely the precursors to the designs that did.
Now, while I may not agree with some of the aircraft they have on their list, I understand their reasonings behind them (with maybe the exception of the P-51). I am also not going to be so arrogant as to suggest that I could come up with one better.
All gave some. Some gave all.