PDA

View Full Version : Cleverest aircraft of the 20th Century



Sergio_101
11-22-2006, 04:10 AM
http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/050324-F-1234P-014.jpg

The number of new inventions in this aircraft were staggering.
Sustained cruise at Mach3+ and 80,000'+
created a laundry list of problems to solve.
None came close, likely none aver will.

Sergio

jasonbirder
11-22-2006, 04:28 AM
What about the Wright Flier...
Definately the most innovative aircraft of the 20th Century...

What about Concorde...its one thing acheiving high supersonic speeds in an aircraft with special fuel and two men essentially in astronaut suits...quite another to do it with 100 paying passangers in the back cruising in luxury to their destination at supesonic speed...every single day of the week...

MrBlueSky1960
11-22-2006, 04:51 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Yep, that???s the one... Arguably, Concorde was the pinnacle of Civil Aviation in the last century, although the De Havilland Comet comes a close second, as a technological break that still continues today???<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v187/Secudus/WhirlySig0101.jpg

Feathered_IV
11-22-2006, 04:53 AM
I was thinking the DC-3...<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

***********************************************

http://server2.uploadit.org/files/Feathered-sigpic.jpg

"Intelligent, normally observant and answered all questions freely. He was arrogant and proud to be a pilot. Fellow prisoners in hospital consider him mentally unstable."

Hoarmurath
11-22-2006, 04:57 AM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/14/Avion_III_20050711.jpg

ElAurens
11-22-2006, 05:28 AM
The X15 is somewhere up there as well, but if you put being able to take off under it's own power in the mix then yeah, the SR 71 is the winnah.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

_____________________________

http://www.blitzpigs.com/photos/ELsKi.jpg

"To explain the lure of speed you would have to explain human nature" - T.E. Lawrence

ploughman
11-22-2006, 05:30 AM
Originally posted by MrBlueSky1960:
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Yep, that???s the one... Arguably, Concorde was the pinnacle of Civil Aviation in the last century, although the De Havilland Comet comes a close second, as a technological break that still continues today???

Quite, the Blackbird has mindblowing performance, and if the rumours are true it's successor even more so (got track?) but two blokes in pressure suits with a camera at 3,000 mph isn't on the same level as feeding a lounge suited Engelbert Humperdinck lobster bisque whilst going faster than a rifle bullet at 60,000 feet.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">


http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y289/mctomney/hellspenguin.jpg
Dum spiro, spero

OD_79
11-22-2006, 05:33 AM
How can I put it...Concorde...no question. NASA even say putting a man on the moon was easy in comared to creating a supersonic airliner that can carry passengers at sustained suspersonic cruise. SR-71 great plane, but doesn't compare to what was required for the Concorde...especially seeing as it had to be created between two nations who don't get on that brilliantly at times...bloody French! lol.

Ever think of the Harrier as well? Fact is it was probably one of the only types of aircraft to have survived a Warsaw Pact strike as it was meant to operate away from airfields. V/STOL, there was a mach 2 version going to be built to prototype before the government cancelled it.

OD.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v240/tom1502/HurricaneSig2.jpg (http://www.79vrafhangar.co.uk)

major_setback
11-22-2006, 05:36 AM
Originally posted by Hoarmurath:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/14/Avion_III_20050711.jpg

Good one!

Here's a link:

http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/hargrave/ader.html


I found out about this in an aircraft book only about a year ago.

Steam powered flight!

And it actually flew in 1890 (so it was 19th century!). Must be one of the oldest forms of powered flight (discounting powered balloons). Unfortunately it wasn't "sustained and controlled" flight like the Wright Brother's, but nevertheless - it flew.


Quoted from the site:

_____________________________________________

"Cl??ment Ader....then focused on the problem of heavier-than-air flying machines and in 1890 built a steam-powered, bat-winged monoplane, which he named the Eole. On October 9 he flew it a distance of 50 m (160 feet) on a friend's estate near Paris. The steam engine was unsuitable for sustained and controlled flight, which required the gasoline engine; nevertheless, Ader's short hop was the first demonstration that a manned heavier-than-air machine could take off from level ground under its own power.

Between 1894 and 1897 Cl??ment Ader built a larger but still 'batlike' twin screw machine which he named the Avion ..."

"The aircraft, which has a wingspan of over 15 metres and is equipped with two 20-HP steam engines and two propellors, was built between 1894 and 1897 in Paris, in the rue Jasmin workshop. The materials used were basically wood and, for a small number of parts, steel, brass and aluminium. The web on the wings was made from silk pongee which, in spite of its tight weave, is permeable to air."


_____________________________________________



http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/hargrave/images/ader_avion3_1_500.jpg

http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/hargrave/images/avion_on_display_500.jpg <div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y129/major-setback/Signaurepic004BESTframe014small.jpg
<span class="ev_code_PINK">My Aim is True.</span>

vocatx
11-22-2006, 09:21 AM
V-22 Osprey. Takes off and lands like a helicopter, flies as fast as a fixed-winged plane. Of course, the numerous predecessors that lead to the Osprey would deserve honorable mention as well for paving the way.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

4H_V-man
The 2nd Horseman

AWL_Spinner
11-22-2006, 09:30 AM
Didn't even have to open this thread to know what would be in the 1st post.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Cheers, Spinner

<hr class="ev_code_hr" />
o Squads! Take a look at the ADW War (http://adwwar.com/en/#), it's fantastic!
o Spinner has been alive in ADW for a maximum of: 3hrs 38mins!

Bremspropeller
11-22-2006, 09:31 AM
P-51..it won a war on it's own<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/2369/toryusig4me.jpg

horseback
11-22-2006, 09:38 AM
Harrier was the first thing that came to my mind on this subject, and it was operational with two or three air forces in the same space of time that the Osprey has spent in development (c'mon now, I remember seeing 1/72nd scale models of the danged thing during the early Reagan administration, and the blurb always mentioned how it was gonna replace the Huey).

Definitely the Harrier.

The SR-71 and the Concorde were logical extensions of the art (and the Concorde, while a fabulous accomplishment-bloody French indeed!- merely proved that NIMBYs will always screw up anything that is cool), but the Harrier was a Whole New Concept Made Practical.

How many other attempts to do the same thing have been tried since, with nothing like the same results?

cheers

horseback<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

"Here's your new Mustangs, boys. You can learn to fly'em on the way to the target. Cheers!" -LTCOL Don Blakeslee, 4th FG CO, February 27th, 1944

ploughman
11-22-2006, 09:58 AM
The V-22's cooler than a box full of Raybans but, as you say, it's been in pre-production longer than the Mars mission.

Hadn't thought about the Harrier, but now you mention it, it's cleverer than a bag of foxes.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">


http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y289/mctomney/hellspenguin.jpg
Dum spiro, spero

jarink
11-22-2006, 10:07 AM
Pretty much anything designed by Bert Rutan.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Starting with this little gem:
http://www.airventuremuseum.org/images/collection/aircraft/Rutan%20VariEze%20Prototype-1.jpg <div class="ev_tpc_signature">

My PF movies:Aluminum Eagle (http://files.netwings.org/files/fb_videos/Aluminum_Eagle/OneVisionLg.zip), Fire and Rain (http://files.netwings.org/files/fb_videos/Fire_and_Rain/Fire_and_Rain.zip) Snowbirds (http://files.netwings.org/files/fb_videos/Snowbirds/Snowbirds.zip)and Crew 22 (http://files.netwings.org/files/fb_videos/Crew_22/Crew22.zip)

http://home.grics.net/jrink/signature.jpg

Chuck_Older
11-22-2006, 10:09 AM
Um...

the helicopter?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v441/Chuck_Older/Jimmychamp.jpg
Flower of Scotland, will we see your like again?

DIRTY-MAC
11-22-2006, 11:26 AM
http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/f/f/get_a_brain_morans.jpg <div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Otto may have been a weirdo, but he was a dam good fighterpilot.
http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c15/HOOTCHIE-MAMA/ohhbabyfinal.jpg
aka HOOTCHIE MAMA online

LStarosta
11-22-2006, 11:31 AM
I like the Osprey.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

_____________________________
http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/5310/tagjimmyssw1.jpg
But another household work, the highly propagandized Me 109G, was obsolete when it was built and was aerodynamically the most inefficient fighter of its time. It was a hopeless collection of lumps, bumps, stiff controls, and placed its pilot in a cramped, squarish cockpit with poor visibility.
-- Col. Carson, USAF


<A HREF="http://www.air-source.us/operations/logbooks/LOGFLIGHTS.asp?PILNO=450" TARGET=_blank>http://www.air-source.us/images/Ribbons/AAS.gif
</A>

ploughman
11-22-2006, 11:39 AM
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y289/mctomney/osprey03RIAT2006.jpg

Me too. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">


http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y289/mctomney/hellspenguin.jpg
Dum spiro, spero

Jaws2002
11-22-2006, 12:06 PM
<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Coanda 1910</span>

It flew in 1910 <span class="ev_code_RED">and it had no prop.!!!!</span>
full scale mockup:
http://muzeu.mapn.ro/colectii/imagine8m.jpg

The real thing at the 1910 Paris expo:
http://airminded.org/wp-content/img/aircraft/coanda1910a.jpg

http://airminded.org/wp-content/img/aircraft/coanda1910b.jpg <div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/<FA>Jaws/Shot1.jpg

TIR 4 Pro -$25 Off- From Forgotten Assassins (http://trackir.naturalpoint.com/forgottenassassins/)


Hunter 82's Uber PC Component Shop (http://www.magnum-pc.com/)

scaredycat1
11-22-2006, 12:33 PM
considering it was desinged 40 years ago and still holds the alt and speed records, my vote goes to the blackbird.

Sergio_101
11-22-2006, 02:17 PM
One thing guys, that is not an SR-71.
It is an YF-12A. It's an armed fighter version of the A-12.
Both planes preceeded the SR-71.

Sergio<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

P-51s may not have won the war, but they did not loose it.
Loosing the war was left to the Bf-109s and Fw-190s. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

SlickStick
11-22-2006, 02:24 PM
LOL, "morans"! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Good one, Dirty-Mac! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Besides, the cleverest plane is the one I'm in at the moment. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

I'm a legend in my own mind, um, time. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

__________________________________
????????k??t????k??? ????2006

http://img294.imageshack.us/img294/8847/tsigspitixcw6cq.jpg
Coming Soon to a Full Six near you...http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif
Track Library (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/1171010994)

Viper2005_
11-22-2006, 02:46 PM
Originally posted by horseback:
How many other attempts to do the same thing have been tried since, with nothing like the same results?

cheers

horseback

45.

See:

http://www.raes.org.uk/conference/PDFs/HISnov06.pdf

Harrier is an awesome bit of kit.

TSR.2 was a very clever aeroplane as well. Almost perfect in every respect except politics.

I don't think that YF-12 would be my blackbird of choice. It was fast but little else, which made it far from ideal as an interceptor. It might have made an escort fighter for B-70, but frankly that defeats the object of the exercise!

A-12 and SR-71 were far better at doing the job for which they were intended. I wonder why no effort was made to convert them to a strike role?

I have to say that for my money the cleverest aeroplanes of the 20th century were the Horten flying wings, with their extremely elegant solution to the stability and control problems posed by pure flying wing designs and have the potential to attain extremely high design point efficiencies.

ploughman
11-22-2006, 02:53 PM
Yeah, we know, bit of the front for the radar and ventral fins to fix the stability, missiles in the bays instead of payload. But i guess we got carried away with production aircraft instead of prototypes. Mind you, one of them did become an SR-71 C (sort of) and retained its ventral fins, which has a pleasant symetry as an SR-71A became aY F-12C by virtue of a bit of paperwork.

Bing Bong. Nice plane though, seriously nice plane. I like that the A-12s were codenamed OXCART, hardly sounds very zippy does it?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">


http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y289/mctomney/hellspenguin.jpg
Dum spiro, spero

Sergio_101
11-22-2006, 03:25 PM
Originally posted by Ploughman:
Yeah, we know, bit of the front for the radar and ventral fins to fix the stability, missiles in the bays instead of payload. But i guess we got carried away with production aircraft instead of prototypes. Mind you, one of them did become an SR-71 C (sort of) and retained its ventral fins, which has a pleasant symetry as an SR-71A became aY F-12C by virtue of a bit of paperwork.

Bing Bong. Nice plane though, seriously nice plane. I like that the A-12s were codenamed OXCART, hardly sounds very zippy does it?

A-12 was faster, flew higher but had shorter range.
Performance is still classified and may
remain so forever.
A-12 was operated by the

Altocirrus
11-22-2006, 03:36 PM
We all know there's no one answer to this question, and all of the planes so far are up there. I'll vote for the Global Hawk:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c5/Globalhawk.750pix.jpg

Incredible range, duration and altitude, and can fly fully autonomously!

heywooood
11-22-2006, 03:39 PM
now THAT is a clever airplane be sure.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v250/heywooood/afewofTheFew-1.jpg

A few of The Few

WarWolfe_1
11-22-2006, 03:49 PM
I think the A-10 is very clever http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Harrier too.

But as far as clever really goes I think that the B-1 is awesome....Dunno if any are even still flying though.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">





http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a244/WarWolfe/MemberSignaturemine.jpg (http://www.flying-legends.net/)
http://users.pandora.be/eforum/emoticons4u/crazy/361.gif http://www.flying-legends.net/ go here for my skins

berg417448
11-22-2006, 03:54 PM
Originally posted by WarWolfe_1:
I think the A-10 is very clever http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Harrier too.

But as far as clever really goes I think that the B-1 is awesome....Dunno if any are even still flying though.


Go to Dyess AFB...you'll see the B-1 operating from there.

http://www.dyess.af.mil/


.

flaming_onion
11-22-2006, 05:19 PM
Originally posted by Ploughman:
Yeah, we know, bit of the front for the radar and ventral fins to fix the stability, missiles in the bays instead of payload. But i guess we got carried away with production aircraft instead of prototypes. Mind you, one of them did become an SR-71 C (sort of) and retained its ventral fins, which has a pleasant symetry as an SR-71A became aY F-12C by virtue of a bit of paperwork.

Bing Bong. Nice plane though, seriously nice plane. I like that the A-12s were codenamed OXCART, hardly sounds very zippy does it?

I had a 1/48 scale model of the YF-12 made by Italeri. Its nickname according to the box was 'The Thing'. Not exactly flattering either.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">



"Hey Andrei, hold my vodka and watch this!"

jarink
11-22-2006, 06:03 PM
Originally posted by Viper2005_:
A-12 and SR-71 were far better at doing the job for which they were intended. I wonder why no effort was made to convert them to a strike role?

I would think that problems involved with dropping/separating/ejecting any sort of ordnance at Mach 3+ may have had a lot to do with it. Perhaps if a "cruise missle" version of the D-21 drone had been made...
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif
http://www.spyflight.co.uk/images/JPGS%5CUAVs%5CD21%20on%20A12.jpg
http://www.spyflight.co.uk/images/JPGS%5CUAVs%5Cm12ag.jpg <div class="ev_tpc_signature">

My PF movies:Aluminum Eagle (http://files.netwings.org/files/fb_videos/Aluminum_Eagle/OneVisionLg.zip), Fire and Rain (http://files.netwings.org/files/fb_videos/Fire_and_Rain/Fire_and_Rain.zip) Snowbirds (http://files.netwings.org/files/fb_videos/Snowbirds/Snowbirds.zip)and Crew 22 (http://files.netwings.org/files/fb_videos/Crew_22/Crew22.zip)

http://home.grics.net/jrink/signature.jpg

JG7_Rall
11-22-2006, 09:43 PM
Originally posted by Altocirrus:
We all know there's no one answer to this question, and all of the planes so far are up there. I'll vote for the Global Hawk:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c5/Globalhawk.750pix.jpg



Incredible range, duration and altitude, and can fly fully autonomously!

Anything that takes the pilot out of the cockpit isn't clever....its a slightly refined piece of sh1t.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

_______________________________

http://badge.facebook.com/badge/9130947.277.2121856952.png (http://umass.facebook.com/profile.php?id=9130947)

Thank you for contributing to this forum.

La7_brook
11-23-2006, 12:09 AM
Originally posted by JG7_Rall:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Altocirrus:
We all know there's no one answer to this question, and all of the planes so far are up there. I'll vote for the Global Hawk:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c5/Globalhawk.750pix.jpg



Incredible range, duration and altitude, and can fly fully autonomously!

Anything that takes the pilot out of the cockpit isn't clever....its a slightly refined piece of sh1t. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>now thats funny http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Altocirrus
11-23-2006, 01:19 AM
No pilot is exactly what makes this thing clever. The pilot's days are numbered, mark my words... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

The-Pizza-Man
11-23-2006, 01:26 AM
They said that in the 1960s as well. I only see UAVs complimenting manned aircraft not replacing them, at least for some time.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://users.tpg.com.au/rowdie/evasig.jpg

Thanatos833
11-23-2006, 04:38 AM
Umm, the fokker dreideker? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/9285/do17in9.jpg

The Dornier Do-17, another brilliant example of German engineering, a ???Schnellbomber" which could just outrun all fighters, this plane led to the German victory in the Battle of Britain and indeed, the Second World War.

Akronnick
11-23-2006, 02:08 PM
The cleverest airplane of the 20th Century is definetly the Wright Flyer. The Wrights figured out how to control a powered aircraft in flight. Without control, everything else doesn't matter, and Wilbur and Orville cracked it. Not to mention they built their own engine, from scratch and they perfected the propeller. These were just two guys from Dayton tinkering in their garage and shipping it all to Kittyhawk once a year for test flights. They had no government funding, or a huge corporation, or decades of experience behind them. They didn't know if powered heavier than air flight was even possible when they started out.

Wilbur and Orville FTW!<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

---Loose nut removed from cockpit, ship OK

HellToupee
11-23-2006, 04:48 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Pearse

plane had things like alerons, vs wright bros wing warping

ElAurens
11-23-2006, 05:32 PM
Glenn Curtiss is generally credited with the first use of ailerons in a powered machnine, which is one of the reasons that the Curtiss firm built far more aeroplanes than did the Wrights.

Glenn Curtiss also invented the twist throttle for motorcycles as well.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

_____________________________

http://www.blitzpigs.com/photos/ELsKi.jpg

"To explain the lure of speed you would have to explain human nature" - T.E. Lawrence

Akronnick
11-24-2006, 10:15 PM
Ailerons are only an extension of the wing-warping concept, although they are by far the better solution, they do essentially the same thing.

The reason the Wrights are given the recognition for building the first airplane is because they not only documented their work, they continued development of their design and were able to demonstrate their aircraft publicly.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

---Loose nut removed from cockpit, ship OK

robban75
11-25-2006, 02:23 AM
I'd say the Viggen was one of the cleverest aircraft of the 20th century. Being able to take off and land within 300-400 meters( in favorable conditions) while still being able to fly at Mach 2+ at altitude. Its data link was more advanced in the early 80's than todays Link-16. The PS-46 radar is one of the worlds most advanced radars. From a standing start the Viggen could reach 10,000 meters in 80 seconds. And it proved many times that it could intercept the SR-71 successfully! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

http://home.student.uu.se/pest9265/JA37%20Viggen%20passerar%20ljudvallen.jpg <div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v486/robban75/JG26-4.jpg

"The Dora 9 was one of the finest piston-engine fighters I have ever flown; it ranks among my top five with the Spitfire XIV, the Grumman Bearcat, the Hawker Sea Fury and the North American P-51D Mustang IV." Captain Eric Brown, WW2 FAA fighter pilot and test pilot.

http://www.bellum.nu/

Holtzauge
11-25-2006, 07:03 AM
Yes Robban, I think you could even go so far as to say it was the cleverest when you consider the short take-off and landing properties! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

The short take off and landing properties allowed operations from the Swedish dispersed road basing system. This allows the a/c to land at an unpredictible spot and be re-armed and re-fueled before the base could be targeted. This is a much more clever way to avoid being engaged than to hide in a hardend shelter http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Just look at all the trouble the Coalition had in Iraq when trying to take out the mobile Scud launchers! Even though this was a top priority they only managed to take out a fraction of them. Why? because they were mobile and employed the clever shoot'n'scoot philosophy just like the RSAF!

By never staying in one spot for any larger period of time and moving unpredictably a small force like the Royal Swedish Air Force could retain it's force and hit back hard even when faced with a superpower! Now that's clever!

And as we all know, war, as Clausewitz once said, is all about local superiority, not necessarily overall superiority in numbers. In this way the RSAF, by virtue of clever tactics and the clever Viggen would have been able to take on any superpower, be sure! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

major_setback
11-25-2006, 10:00 AM
There was a post along while ago about an aircraft that flies using a very unusual principle. I can't find the thread or any pictures of it buit it was something like this:

http://www.esotec.co.nz/hb/HTML/HomePage2_F.html

and this:

http://www.lionheartcreations.com/Wasp_Page_1.html


http://www.lionheartcreations.com/sitebuilder/images/Plane3-678x484.jpg

It had circular (ring shaped) wings with propellers in front. The idea behind the concept was that lift is generated by windflow over the wing - you only have to have propellers blowing over a wing shaped surface for lift to follow ie. the props blew over the circular wings to provide lift. The wings don't have to be paralel with the ground (these weren't, they were vertical rings).

This is one of the most revolutionary approaches to flight I have heard of.

Does anyone have a link?

stathem
11-25-2006, 11:01 AM
Originally posted by Thanatos833:
Umm, the fokker dreideker? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

What, the one copied off Tommy Sopwith's design?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/griffnav/Gallery/MossiePRsig.jpg

HellToupee
11-25-2006, 11:28 AM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
Glenn Curtiss is generally credited with the first use of ailerons in a powered machnine, which is one of the reasons that the Curtiss firm built far more aeroplanes than did the Wrights.

Glenn Curtiss also invented the twist throttle for motorcycles as well.

pearse's machine was flown before the wright brothers one, its credited even amoung some US historians as first power assited flight, not really controlled flight.

quote from wiki http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

"Pearse placed controls for pitch and yaw at the trailing edge of the low-aspect ratio kite-type permanently stalled wing. Located in turbulent air-flow, and close to the centre of gravity, they would have lacked adequate turning moment to control the pitch or yaw of the aircraft."

So it would probly have first use but not first effective use :P

harryklein66
11-25-2006, 12:08 PM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v296/harryklein/bh-22.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v296/harryklein/x1_06.jpg <div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v296/harryklein/harry3.jpg

Heavy_Weather
11-25-2006, 12:26 PM
now you guys do know the TB-3 outclasses all the above aircraft right? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Blottogg
11-25-2006, 11:12 PM
I don't know that there can be only one answer to this question (like all the "best" and "favorite" threads, or "favourite" for our UK friends.) I like a lot of the aircraft suggested so far. Some thoughts (in no particular order):

- SR-71/YF-12/A-12: This family of aircraft pushed so many boundaries at once. If only half of the solutions used count as "clever", it would still qualify. Some stories I remember reading include the search for a hydraulic fluid that could tolerate high temperatures. One of the subcontractors offered a material that was a powder at room temperature! Working with titanium on a large scale for the first time also caused some problems. The water in California was (and is) chlorinated, and when this was used to wash/quench the titanium, resulted in a reaction that left the parts very brittle. The chrome plating on conventional tools also reacted with the metal, requiring brass tools to be used IIRC. Testing the engines using the exhaust flow of another jet to simulate the compression heating at Mach 3 also stands out.

- Concorde: The design team for this aircraft had to take military fighter performance and make it comfortable, reliable and safe. Compared to conventional transports, they fell short. Putting their achievements in these areas on a scale though, they fell a lot closer to transports than fighters. And when it came to performance, they fell a lot closer to (or past) fighters than transports. Its cleverness is tarnished only by the fact that it ultimately answered its own economic question in the negative ("Is one half the transit time worth five times the cost?")

- The Wright Flyer: By modern standards it may have just barely flown, but it brought several things together for the first time. I'll certainly nominate the Wright Brothers as clever. Starting with Lilienthal's work, they recognized its shortcomings, and systematically worked to correct them, using models, prototypes and wind tunnels. Routine today, at the time these were definitely clever. Their control system may not have been the most ergonomic, but it worked better than anything up to that point. Perhaps most significantly, they helped develop a motor that was light enough and powerful enough to keep them airborne.

- Fw-61: As much as I'll acknowledge Igor Sikorsky's work to make helicopters practical and controllable, the Focke-Wulf team beat him to it. Hovering inside a building certainly put paid to any questions of controllability. The Germans were never able to put this to practical use during the war, however.

- Autogiros: Before the helicopter, these were the STOVL answer. Marrying an engine with a tractor propeller to a free-spinning rotor for lift was creative (I hate the clich?? "thinking outside the box", but it applies here, and for all of these examples I suppose.) Compared to fixed wing aircraft of the era, it gained a lot of landing performance at the cost of very little top speed. The limited need of such performance, inability to keep pace with fixed wing performance gains, and their additional cost, ultimately doomed them to their niche market.

- Harrier: The accomplishments of control and transition from vertical to conventional flight and back, are both extremely clever. Even more so is that this is done with only one additional control lever in the cockpit. It may have its shortcomings compared to either helicopters or conventional jets, but by the same token, so do they when compared to the Harrier.

- I see the V-22 as an example of persistence in the face of adversity more than cleverness (kind of like the Porsche 911), I'm afraid. Tilt rotors have been around in one form or another for over forty years, the Osprey for at least twenty. I guess my idea of clever has a time limit. I also guess I'm waiting to see whether it proves its worth in operations, or if its shortcomings outweigh its capabilities.

- The X-1 was also more utilitarian than clever. The use of its variable incidence trim system to control pitch in the transonic region was clever, but I attribute that cleverness more to the operational guys than the designers.

- Burt Rutan's body of work I'll collectively label clever. From the VariViggen to SpaceShip One, his aircraft have always managed to achieve more performance than the list of parts used to make them would lead you to expect. They may have a few rough edges, but again, less so than I would have guessed given what they accomplish. Beating X-15 altitude records with a fraction of NASA's budget definitely requires some cleverness.

- I'll also put in a couple of words for the materials and control guys. The aerodynamics advances are the most visible, and get the most attention, but often the critical advances are in materials. High temperature alloys to make engines powerful enough to propel these new ideas, structural materials to allow previously impossible shapes to be manufactured, electronics fast and light enough to control these unwieldy shapes without gluing them to the earth. How many aircraft descriptions end with "if only it had sufficient [power, control, structure, etc.] it would have been a world-beater."? For the aircraft here that are described as "clever", a lot of that cleverness is behind the scenes, and never adequately acknowledged.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Blotto

"A poor plan, violently executed, is better than no plan at all." - "Sledge"

DuxCorvan
11-26-2006, 03:14 AM
Cleverest aircraft of the 20th Century

Since 99,99% of flying aircraft were made or designed in the 20th Century -unless you include balloons- you could safely rephrase the question as "Cleverest aircraft of all". http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

IMHO, the most revolutionary plane was the Wright Flyer III of 1905: the first heavier-than-air aircraft that could fly independently of luck, till it ran out of gas. (The first Flyer of 1903 couldn't).


Originally posted by Blottogg:
- Autogiros: Before the helicopter, these were the STOVL answer. Marrying an engine with a tractor propeller to a free-spinning rotor for lift was creative (I hate the clich?? "thinking outside the box", but it applies here, and for all of these examples I suppose.) Compared to fixed wing aircraft of the era, it gained a lot of landing performance at the cost of very little top speed.

**Spanish** invention. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

majnos64
11-26-2006, 05:19 AM
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/images/content/107238main_helios1_330.jpg
Considering plane construction. Not electronics what is stored in. Helios is very flexible wing using only solar power to fly it is 75m wide http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. Or SR-71 its engines and composites are true aviation revolution.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

"He,who has braver heart, more cold and full of foreseeing courage, which is born from believe in success and in righteousness of things, will smite his opponent." - Aleksandr Ivanovich Pokryshkin

Blottogg
11-26-2006, 03:42 PM
Dux, I'd forgotten the autogiro originated in Spain (by Juan de la Clerva... I had to look it up), good call. Pitcairn came later, though they had better PR guys, I guess.

BSS_CUDA mentioned it in another thread, so I thought I'd bring it up here: XB-70 Valkyrie. Too big (and early) for titanium construction, it was made largely of... stainless steel! Both materials handle Mach 3 friction heating well. At the time it flew it was both the biggest and fastest airplane in the world. It was configured to generate some lift at speed by riding its own shock wave (a clever way of increasing range to meet the requirements for a bombing mission.) Its designers solved the problems of supersonic center of lift shifting aft and this shift reducing yaw stability, by ingeniously folding the wingtips down up to 60 degrees at speed. This reduced wing area on the aft portion of the delta (offsetting the shift in center of lift from about 25 percent MAC subsonic to 50 percent MAC) and increased vertical surface area aft of the aerodynamic center, increasing yaw stability. Very cool, but doomed by complexity and the increasing capability of SAMs. Crashing one of the two prototypes after a mid-air collision (during a publicity formation photo shoot for engine manufacturer General Electric) didn't help, either.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

Blotto

"A poor plan, violently executed, is better than no plan at all." - "Sledge"

Holtzauge
11-27-2006, 10:45 AM
Originally posted by Blottogg:
Dux, I'd forgotten the autogiro originated in Spain (by Juan de la Clerva... I had to look it up), good call. Pitcairn came later, though they had better PR guys, I guess.

BSS_CUDA mentioned it in another thread, so I thought I'd bring it up here: XB-70 Valkyrie. Too big (and early) for titanium construction, it was made largely of... stainless steel! Both materials handle Mach 3 friction heating well. At the time it flew it was both the biggest and fastest airplane in the world. It was configured to generate some lift at speed by riding its own shock wave (a clever way of increasing range to meet the requirements for a bombing mission.) Its designers solved the problems of supersonic center of lift shifting aft and this shift reducing yaw stability, by ingeniously folding the wingtips down up to 60 degrees at speed. This reduced wing area on the aft portion of the delta (offsetting the shift in center of lift from about 25 percent MAC subsonic to 50 percent MAC) and increased vertical surface area aft of the aerodynamic center, increasing yaw stability. Very cool, but doomed by complexity and the increasing capability of SAMs. Crashing one of the two prototypes after a mid-air collision (during a publicity formation photo shoot for engine manufacturer General Electric) didn't help, either.

That was interesting info Blottog on an intersting plane (or should I say clever perhaps http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif ). How did they do that bit about riding the wave at M1+ I wonder? I once heard that the Mig-25 was conceived to adress this threat and that the Soviets continued to run the program despite that the Valkyrie got the ax. Dunno if that's true though. If it is then they obviously felt threatened by what they saw and knew of the program.

PS: I'm sure you detected the humerous vein in the Viggen post, right? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

I_KG100_Prien
11-27-2006, 11:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG7_Rall:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Altocirrus:
We all know there's no one answer to this question, and all of the planes so far are up there. I'll vote for the Global Hawk:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c5/Globalhawk.750pix.jpg

I hard

ARCHIE_CALVERT
11-27-2006, 01:11 PM
major_setback:

http://www.maam.org/aircraft/images/custer_0.jpg

The Custer channel wing...<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v187/Secudus/ChiefBlueMeanie.jpg
Now if, in the folding, I ESP the tesseract a half twist around myself and-

hi_stik
11-27-2006, 01:16 PM
I cannot believe that none of you WWII nerds haven't come up w/ the Flying Flapjack...

It was a VSTOL aircraft that would have revolutionized warfare had the Navy had some brains and guts to run with it...

http://www.daveswarbirds.com/usplanes/aircraft/flapjack.htm

That plane RULED

Blottogg
11-27-2006, 02:34 PM
Holtzauge, I've actually always liked the stuff that SAAB built (their airplanes anyway... not as fond of their cars.) Given the relatively small population of Sweden (and small industrial base), the level of performance of contemporary SAAB fighters through the years is all the more impressive. Their data link systems have always been ahead of western and Soviet/Russian systems (though incompatible with the rest of the world, understandably), and aerodynamically the planes have been in the thick of the performance comparisons. I like the practicality of the aircraft, too. Simple enough to be maintained and repaired by consripts, this also tends to mean they're reliable. I even think the engine choice for the Viggen was clever. It's basically an afterburning version of a commercial JT8D, the engine powering thousands of 737-200's and DC-9's around the world. The Viggen was retired long before engine parts became a problem.

As to the specifics of the Valkyrie, I don't remember off the top of my head. I remember reading that during the initial design studies they found that they weren't going to meet their range performance goals with a conventional (non-wave-riding) design. Since shock waves are nothing more than pressure/temperature boundaries, they realized that they could take advantage of the pressure differential across the shock boundary if they reshaped the fuselage to help capture some of that pressure differential to hold the airplane up (elevated nose and flat, triangular belly.) The folding wingtips may have helped in this regard, too.

One thing I do remember reading about it as a kid was a pilot quote. Talking about dealing with ATC (air traffic control) at Mach 3, the controllers learned not to give the Valkyrie their standard "stand-by" when they called for a clearance request. The pilot said "You don't 'stand-by' for long at Mach 3. No sir, you don't stand-by."

P.S. I did find this site (http://www.aerospaceweb.org/design/waverider/design.shtml#complift), which explains compression lift pretty well.

major_setback
11-28-2006, 02:59 AM
Originally posted by ARCHIE_CALVERT:
major_setback:

http://www.maam.org/aircraft/images/custer_0.jpg

The Custer channel wing...



THANKS!

That was driving me crazy: searched through all my aircraft pictures and couldn't find it, searched the web and couldn't find it.
Ta!

Site:

http://www.custerchannelwing.com/

http://www.custerchannelwing.com/images/plane7-72.jpg

It was capable of vertical flight!

http://www.custerchannelwing.com/04_facts.html


http://www.custerchannelwing.com/images/plane5b.jpg

http://www.angelfire.com/va3/bythefire/images/CCW5_1.jpg

http://1000aircraftphotos.com/Garber/745-1Custer.jpg <div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y129/major-setback/Signaurepic004BESTframe014small.jpg
<span class="ev_code_PINK">My Aim is True.</span>

stathem
11-28-2006, 04:04 AM
Originally posted by major_setback:

THANKS!

That was driving me crazy: searched through all my aircraft pictures and couldn't find it, searched the web and couldn't find it.
Ta!

Site:

http://www.custerchannelwing.com/

http://www.custerchannelwing.com/images/plane7-72.jpg

It was capable of vertical flight!

http://www.custerchannelwing.com/04_facts.html


http://www.custerchannelwing.com/images/plane5b.jpg

http://www.angelfire.com/va3/bythefire/images/CCW5_1.jpg

http://1000aircraftphotos.com/Garber/745-1Custer.jpg

That's proper interesting stuff, thanks for that link.

However, I do hope that raaid doesn't see that link.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/griffnav/Gallery/MossiePRsig.jpg