It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

3 planes that changed the world

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 18 2007 @ 10:13 AM
link   
1.) B-29
2.) B-52
3.) B-2

A;; of these bomers changed warfare in different ways.

[edit on 18/6/07 by galm 1]




posted on Jun, 18 2007 @ 12:11 PM
link   
I think waynos was pretty close the first time.

I'd vote for....

1. The Wright Flyer - It changed the world by demonstrating that controlled powered heavier than air flight was indeed possible and its existence prompted others to continue with their experiments and developments.

2. DC-3 - Changed the world by making commercial air travel comfortable and reliable and attractive, in turn making the airline industry viable.

3. Boeing 707 - Shrunk the world, brought air travel within the reach of the 'common man' and established intercontinental travel by air as the preferred method for everyone.

I have issues with many of the other choices, for instance....

B-17 and Spitfire - very controversial and surrounded by mythology. Spitfire vs Hurricane (Hurricane contributed more to the outcome of the Battle of Britain than the Spit - and perhaps Radar more so) and B-17 vs B-24 (More B-24s built and in the European bombing campaign than B-17s and neither removed the need for the D-Day invasion) - and nobody even mentioned the Mustang!

The B-29 (Enola Gay) - well really it was the bomb that changed the world, not the aircraft that just happened to have dropped it. Had slightly different politics been in force, then it could well have been a Lancaster that dropped the bomb on Berlin. Had the B-29 not dropped the bomb, it would have no more fame than the P-38 Lightning.

MiG-15 - merely demonstrated to the world that Russian designers could be just as good as anyone else's - a point not taken on board by America until the appearance of the Sukhoi Su-27. (and Britain's politicians could be just as stupid as anyone else's - didn't change Britain's, or anyone else's politicians though)

Boeing 747 - continued the trend set by the 707 in reducing costs and making flying more affordable. Similar sort of situation for the DC3 vs Lockheed Constellation - incremental improvement.

SR-71 - very effective as far as aviation design, but it didn't really change the world.

The Space Shuttle - no, the majority of satellites are still launched on the top of big skyrockets.

F-117 and B-2 - just a different way of fighting - like missiles vs guns - the technology will eventually be countered and nothing will have changed. Much the same as gunpowder - won at the time for those that had it, but didn't stop the fighting.

Bell X-1 and English Electric Lightning - good, fast designs (even though in reality the Bell X-1 was a scaled up 50 cal bullet with a rocket up its bum) with no range - didn't change my world - in fact had no effect on my world at all.

Harrier and other VTOL aircraft - adds another variable in conflict planning much like the F-117, but I don't see any changes in the world because it got built. The only changes (non-change actually) directly attributable to the Harrier would have to be limited to the population of the Falklands, but hardly the world. - Kinda like saying that the DHC Beaver changed the world (of the Inuit).

Messerschmitt Me 262 - didn't even influence the outcome of WWII let alone the world, due to it's late service entry and small numbers. The jet engine certainly did change aviation though, but the Brits might take issue with attributing it to Germany.


De Havilland Comet - could have changed the world, but failed to do so, handing that accolade to the 707 - just as the Concorde could have changed the world - but didn't.

The nomination of so many bombers surprises me though. It perpetuates the myth that strategic bombing alone can win a war. It CAN, but only with nuclear weapons, and since they can be delivered by ICBM, then it would be the nukes rather than the concept of strategic bombing that brings about the outcome. Regardless of all the adherents to that theory, much loved in the USA from Curtiss LeMay onwards (and obviously including current US military planners and politicians), strategic bombing alone has never defeated an enemy - see WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq I, Iraq II, Afghanistan (Russian and American participation) - shock and awe yes! Valid decisive doctrine NO! Basic rule of warfare - the troops eventually have to take the ground the hard way - everything else is just a means of making that happen - always was, always will be. (Hmmm now where, I wonder, does that leave the strategic concept of UCAVs - the troops will still have to go in)

The Winged Wombat

[edit on 18/6/07 by The Winged Wombat]



posted on Jun, 18 2007 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Winged Wombat
Basic rule of warfare - the troops eventually have to take the ground the hard way - everything else is just a means of making that happen - always was, always will be. (Hmmm now where, I wonder, does that leave the strategic concept of UCAVs - the troops will still have to go in)

The Winged Wombat

[edit on 18/6/07 by The Winged Wombat]


Wombat! Welcome to the forums! that in my openion was an almost (not completely) accurate post on most of the planes mentioned, nothing too out there though until you wraped it up with the above UCAV's statement. In my openion this is the fact are hardcore UCAV pushers on these forums forget and you explained it like a scholar. Consider youself on my firends list if you would so accept. Look forward to seeing you around the forums.

Canada_EH



posted on Jun, 18 2007 @ 06:41 PM
link   
If it is limited to just three then:

(1) the DC-3 for safe commercial air travel

(2) P-51 Mustang for enabling bombers to defeat Germany

(3) Boeing 747 for enabling ordinary people to afford to travel the world



posted on Jun, 18 2007 @ 10:09 PM
link   
Thanks Canada_EH,

While the issue of UCAVs can be tied to strategic bomber theory, there are, of course other considerations. We know that the US is also investing in other unmanned platforms, no doubt as a response to public backlash about casualties and as a force multiplier. Whether unmanned land vehicles can change the principles of warfare by allowing the 'remote troops' to take and maintain the ground will remain unclear until they are fielded. Seen in that light UCAVS would certainly reduce friendly casualties, but will not, of itself change the myth surrounding strategic bombing theory.


sy.gunson,

IMHO the P-51 didn't change the world, nor the bombers that they protected. Even to say that the defeat of Hitler changed the world is only correct in as much as everything that decides our history changes something in the timeline and affects the future. It didn't changed the world in the sense that it ended war, or deterred dictators. If strategic bombing defeated Germany, then the D-Day landings and the subsequent fighting all the way to Berlin would not have been necessary. To win a war (as opposed to re-creating a country as a nuclear crater) , the mud crawlers have to take and maintain the ground, everything else is really just a means of making that job easier for them or tipping the balance in their favour. Certainly the strategic bombing of Germany did contribute significantly to winning that war, but it didn't win it all by itself. The concept of bombing a country into submission has been proved, time and time again, to be a myth.

One could say that the atomic bombs on Japan ended that war, but the troops still had to occupy Japan to 'defeat' Japan.

At best, one can say that the P-51 was an excellent tool, which enabled the bombers to weaken the MIC of Germany, as a means of reducing the opposition to the grunts whose job it was to defeat Germany and decide the course of future history, but the world, its attitudes and behavior didn't really change much.

The Winged Wombat


[edit on 18/6/07 by The Winged Wombat]



posted on Jun, 18 2007 @ 10:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Winged Wombat
Bell X-1 and English Electric Lightning - good, fast designs (even though in reality the Bell X-1 was a scaled up 50 cal bullet with a rocket up its bum) with no range - didn't change my world - in fact had no effect on my world at all.


Are you serious? The first manned controlled supersonic aircraft that proved the sound barrier was not impassible and which solved many of the problems related with flying supersonic "had no effect on your world at all"? You just might be overlooking a few things there.

[edit on 18-6-2007 by WestPoint23]



posted on Jun, 18 2007 @ 11:07 PM
link   
Hawker Hurricane, won the Battle of Britain
Hawker Hunter, Britains finest jet fighter
English Electric Lightning, Cold War Interdictor.



posted on Jun, 19 2007 @ 01:21 AM
link   
Just to put an end to the B-17s won the world war 2 posts: German industrial production increased all the way untill 1945 and only started to shrink after the red army began taking down the factories as it advanced to german soil. Source: Memoirs of Albert Speer



posted on Jun, 19 2007 @ 01:34 AM
link   
Westpoint23,

So how does traveling supersonically change the world? Changed military aviation, yes, but virtually no effect on the world.

When it comes down to it, aviation runs at least fourth in developments (overall) that have changed the world, for instance - 1. the mastery of fire, 2. the development of language and 3. the invention of the wheel !


Mukiwa,

The English Electric Lightning was an Interceptor, not an Interdictor and due to its short range was of absolutely no use to anyone with a larger area to defend than Britain - thus its failure as an export earner. Quite apart from that, it was never used in anger, so it couldn't possibly have actually changed anything.

northwolf,

Very true, but it did have a major effect on fuel production, and thus a major effect on the defence of the Reich, and the effectiveness of propaganda (and therefore morale), so it was not a wasted effort. It is just unfortunate that the strategic bombing myth still exists in spite of repeated proofs.

The Winged Wombat

[edit on 19/6/07 by The Winged Wombat]



posted on Jun, 19 2007 @ 01:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by northwolf
Source: Memoirs of Albert Speer



Hmmm pretty reliable source as far as I am concerned.
If thier industrial capacity was in such good shape please explain the reason all of the advanced aircraft were never built in large numbers?

[edit on 6/19/07 by FredT]



posted on Jun, 19 2007 @ 02:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by FredT

Hmmm pretty reliable source as far as I am concerned.
If thier industrial capacity was in such good shape please explain the reason all of the advanced aircraft were never built in large numbers?

[edit on 6/19/07 by FredT]


Come on FredT, you know the answers to that one....

1. In actuality, Germany's economy couldn't bear the cost of the war in the first place - much of it was paid for by looting the treasuries of the conquered nations

2. Germany only planned a short war, for economic reasons, and deferred development of replacement types until way too late.

3. It is one thing to draw up GA drawings of advanced aircraft based on theoretical knowledge, but it is quite a different matter to bring them to fruition and into service. Many of the advanced design concepts of Germany continued by both the West and Russia, took many years to turn into hardware, and even longer to turn them into more than research aircraft. Think how long it was after WWII that the first Delta winged aircraft entered service or how long it took the Russians to develop the turboprop engines for the Tu-95 Bear (based on German WWII design and something the West never achieved) - also consider that the Germans had practical problems with less advanced concepts such as the He 177 Grief and its coupled engines, so everything their designers drew up was never ever going to be possible, or even practical, given the time available.

The Winged Wombat



[edit on 19/6/07 by The Winged Wombat]



posted on Jun, 19 2007 @ 02:30 AM
link   
Funny I don’t see anyone mentioning the spruce goose. Many of the most important innovations in modern aviation came from that aircraft, including hydraulics.



posted on Jun, 19 2007 @ 04:41 AM
link   
Whats interesting is that the XP-86 Sabre protoype is reported to have broken the sound barrier - twice , before the X-1.

en.wikipedia.org...


But i do concur - that breaking the sound barrier it self is not `earth shattering` importance - it just means getting somewhere faster - which to this day the majority of air travel is done at 500 mph and not M1 or above.



posted on Jun, 19 2007 @ 04:54 AM
link   
The Wright Flier: First airplane (obviously changed the world)

ME 262: First Jet to fly, would change flight forever

Sikorsky Ilya Muromets: The little known airplane that carried the 1st passanger for profit (1st airliner) Airliner History

Could there be three more obvious choices?


Tim



posted on Jun, 19 2007 @ 08:25 AM
link   
Do helicopters count?
I'm sure that one of the three would have to be a helo!



posted on Jun, 19 2007 @ 08:40 AM
link   
Good thread!

1. Concorde.

For soooo many reasons, the cost, the politics but most of all the sheer beauty of the thing and the fact that really, when you think about it, it was years ahead of its time. At one point the only people flying higher were those on Mir, and SR-71 and U2 pilots in pressure suits - yet you could sit in it in shirt sleeves and eat a gormet meal and drink champagne! It was basically Europes Apollo programme. Scrapping it is the first time mankind has taken a step back techologically.

2. Mig-25

Two Tumanskii Engines with 49,400 lb (220.0 kN) of thrust (with afterburner) bolted into a frame that couldn't take it!
Only the Russians would do that
Also because it scared the bejeesus out of NATO, and Viktor Belenko's defection was pure drama and one of the big points of cold war aviation.

3. de Havilland Mosquito./Avro Lancaster.

I'm cheating on this one, because I love these two equally

The Mossie... Plywood, Spruce and Balsa. Two Merlin Engines that weren't contra-rotating so it had the kind of swing that could have made Tiger Woods envious, it went higher and faster than just about eveything until the Mustang and the Jets came along.

As for the Lancaster....

Its the sound of freedom. 'nuff said


[edit on 19/0607/07 by neformore]



posted on Jun, 19 2007 @ 08:51 AM
link   
Oh waynos how could you have missed the most obvious and important of all? THE PAPER PLANE!
Seriously, it has inspired more aerospace engineers and inventors than any other single thing except maybe birds.

Actually I take issue with a number of aircraft suggested by others.

1. The Wright flyer. If the Wright brothers hadn't done it others were about to. If it had not been for work by people that they studied like Lawrence Hargrave, it would never have got off the ground.

2. The Spirit of St Louis. Another feat shrouded in disproportionate myth. Lindberg only claim to fame and the Atlantic crossing was probably the easiest of all the global pioneering flights. Did you way it up against the "Southern Cross" making the first trans Pacific flight before including it? Or for that matter the first trans Arctic flight?

3. The Bell X1. Yeah sure they solved the riddle of safe supersonic flight. After they nicked the idea of the all moving horizontal stabillizer from Britain. And lets not forget that scientists and engineers in Britain were way ahead of their American counterparts until some dumbass in the government pulled the plug on their efforts at the eleventh hour. The honour should have gone to an Avro or Saunders-Roe effort (I forget which, Im sure waynos will correct me
)

Oh and thanks to The Winged Wombat, for pointing out the other myth surrounding the Spitfire v's Hurricane.

LEE.



posted on Jun, 19 2007 @ 09:08 AM
link   
Just for future reference, in order of first flight....

Heinkel He 178 (the FIRST jet aircraft) - ff 27th August 1939
Heinkel He 280 (the FIRST jet fighter, rejected in favour of Me 262) - ff 20th March 1941
Gloster E.28/39 'Pioneer' (the first British jet aircraft) - ff 15th May 1942
Messerschmitt Me 262 - ff 18th July 1942
Bell XP-59A Airacomet - (first American jet aircraft - British engine) - 2nd October 1942 (inadvertent hop the previous day)
Arado Ar 234 Blitz - (the FIRST jet bomber) - 15th June 1943
De Havilland Vampire (the first British jet fighter) - ff 20th September 1943
Gloster Meteor - ff 9th November 1943
Lockheed XP-80 Shooting Star (British engine) - 8th January 1944
Nakajima Kikka (first Japanese jet aircraft) - ff 7th August 1944
Junkers Ju 287 - 16th August 1944
Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-9 & Yakovlev Yak-15 (first Russian jet aircraft - German engines) - ff 24th April 1946

The Winged Wombat



posted on Jun, 19 2007 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by neformore
Good thread!

1. Concorde.

For soooo many reasons, the cost, the politics but most of all the sheer beauty of the thing and the fact that really, when you think about it, it was years ahead of its time. At one point the only people flying higher were those on Mir, and SR-71 and U2 pilots in pressure suits - yet you could sit in it in shirt sleeves and eat a gormet meal and drink champagne! It was basically Europes Apollo programme. Scrapping it is the first time mankind has taken a step back techologically.



So what, you're saying is that it should have changed the world - but it didn't, because ultimately it wasn't successful, because it didn't change air travel.

thebozeian,

The fact is that the Wright Brothers WERE the ones who did it - 'A' for effort for all before and all after, but it was the Flyer that changed things. A bit like the Comet/707 argument - the Comet should have, but didn't, so the 707 did. Circumstances, as much as design create world changing events.

er... re the X-1 and the sound barrier - it was Miles actually.

By the way, has it not entered people minds that perhaps Britain's greatest fighter designer - Sir Sydney Camm - never built a supersonic aircraft?

The Winged Wombat


[edit on 19/6/07 by The Winged Wombat]



posted on Jun, 19 2007 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by galm 1
1.) B-29
2.) B-52
3.) B-2

A;; of these bomers changed warfare in different ways.



I'm going to change up my list here.

1.) Me-262
It provided the allies a new design for jets. The idea of swept wing fighters came from Germany. Today, almost every fighter has swept wing. Swept wings allow for faster speeds and more manuverability.

2.) B-29
It was the first bomber that dropped the atomic bomb in anger. It also influenced the design of Tu-4 bomber.

3.) This one is a tie between the MiG-15 and the F-86 saber
These 2 jets marked the begining of a whole new type of dog fighting.

This seems like an essay from school. NOOOO!!!



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join