# The Greatest Ever Series



## davparlr (Dec 3, 2008)

I have watched a couple episodes of a new series on the Military Channel called "The Greatest Ever". To me it is not very informative or knowledgeable. For one, their “experts”, as far as I can tell, consist of collectors and Tom Clancy. Tom Clancy is certainly intelligent and knowledgeable about military equipment, but an expert?

Here is a list of top 10 of “Greatest Ever” fighters. I have forgotten one and the list is close to the order presented but not precise, best being last.

F-117 - WHAT??

Fokker Dr.I - Greatest ever? What about the D.VII? I think there were several WWI aircraft as good or better than the Dr.I

Harrier – Okay, should have been 10.

Bf-109 – Okay, should have been higher (better).

F-86 – Okay, should have been higher on the list, also, no Mig-15?

F-18 – What? It is a great aircraft, but a greater fighter with more success than the F-15 (which is not mentioned)?

Mig-21 – An okay aircraft, but can you omit the F-4, certainly one of the greatest fighters in history. Did the Mig-21 ever demonstrate superiority over western type? Maybe in India-Pakistani wars?

Spitfire – Okay, but I don’t know if it was so much better than the lower rated Bf-109.

P-51 – Arguably Okay. P-51 lobby is as strong as ever. 

This series does little to add to historical perspective, in my opinion.


----------



## timshatz (Dec 3, 2008)

I can see the 117 because of stealth. It would be something like the Fokker Eindecker, first to do it and that makes it notable. But greatest is too open to perspective. 

Agree with you on the DR1, too slow, blind alley as far as a fighter is concerned (if three is good, would four be better?). Also think the F18 is a very good aircraft but...so? It hasn't spent time in a serious conflict and a great aircraft needs that. Also, the Mig21 was a good bird and an interesting way to go but not head and shoulders above any of the other aircraft out there. 

Only the 109 and Spitfire would make it, in my opinion. Both served all the way through the greatest airwar and were still viable aircraft at the end. Very few other aircraft of the Second World War (maybe the Yak) can say the same. The designs took to progressively larger engines and weights without being obsolete. Need to have that. 

F86? Maybe. Better than the Mig15 in terms of polish and design but both were similar in performance. Needed better armament.

Harrier? Pass. After the vistol part, it's a point defense fighterbomber with good avionics. 

Mustang? Great for it's time but that time was limited. Happy accident of engine and airframe. Could make the list, but it doesn't have the longevity (as a full threat) that the Spitfire and 109 have. Early designs of both fighters were knocking down airplanes before the P51 was even on the drawing board.


----------



## Catch22 (Dec 3, 2008)

I've seen it before, and the Zero's on the list.

Where the Hell is the Corsair?


----------



## SoD Stitch (Dec 3, 2008)

Totally agree with you on the Fokker's; the Dr. I was a tricky ship to fly, only experienced pilots could fly it effectively. It had a tendency to snap-roll in a tight turn. IMO, the D.VII was a much better a/c, much easier to fly, and more effective. there was a reason the Versailles Treaty outlawed the D.VII at the end of WWI; at the time, it was better than anything the Allies possessed. 

And, yes, the F-15 IS better than the F-18; no idea how the F-18 made it on the list the F-15 didn't.


----------



## BombTaxi (Dec 3, 2008)

I can't see how the Dr.1 is in there when this isn't:









After all, the Dr.1 was a direct response to the Sopwith, but didn't really handle as well and had a more marked tendency to break-up in flight.


----------



## Waynos (Dec 3, 2008)

Considering the F-117 and the Harrier are not fighters I think they can count themselves lucky to be on the list, though they would make the top end of any list of 'most ingenious' warplanes.

Spitfire and 109 for sure, yeah, and very close together too.

F-15 would be a must too, no way would I include the F-18.

MiG 21 might be a possibility, isn't it the most produced jet fighter of all time? And there is a saying that 'quantity has a quality all of its own' it has also proven a very rugged and relaible aircraft that proved very troublesome to intercept in this years red flag against F-15C's so I can go with that.

Hmmm, that makes 4, six more?

Spreading things out I would choose something quite different from WW1 than the Dr1, either the Sopwith Camel or the Fokker DVII would be greater. I'll go for the DVII, just

The F-86 also qualifies for me. imho it was better than the MiG 15. better fighter and better design.

without getting too drawn on reasons then, and in age order only, I would say

10 Sopwith Camel
9 Fokker DVII
8 Bf 109
7 Spitfire
6 F-86
5 Mirage III
4 MIG 21
3 Lightning
2 F-4
1 F-15

Though if I keep thinking aboput it I will no doubt change my mind

edit to say, but then I am already thinking 'what about the Fw 190? F-16? F4U Corsair? etc etc


----------



## timshatz (Dec 3, 2008)

The Tripehound was a better plane than the DR1. Faster, better built. Underarmed in comparison. But the manuverability of the Sop was not the reason the three wings were used. It was for visability. 

The Germans got it wrong, thought it was for climb and manuver. 

The Zero made it on the list? Nah, good airplane, but had no survivability. Much of the success should be attributed to the superb pilots that flew it. It it were put in action over Europe, with pilots of average caliber, it would've been withdrawn. Flaming death trap. Picture the Zero attacking the 8th Air Force the way the 109 and 190 did? Nah, that kind of work needed a more durable machine. 

However, that said, it was the first Air Superiority fighter. Designed from the start to go to the other guy's airfield and destroy him there. Something of a novel approach. If it were on the list for that reason, I could understand their perspective.


----------



## davparlr (Dec 3, 2008)

timshatz said:


> I can see the 117 because of stealth. It would be something like the Fokker Eindecker, first to do it and that makes it notable. But greatest is too open to perspective.



The F-117 was no fighter, it was an attack, or, more appropiately, a bomber aircraft. I would not consider an aircraft a fighter unless it was primarily designed for air-to-air combat. The F-117 had no air-to-air capability.


----------



## davparlr (Dec 3, 2008)

Catch22 said:


> I've seen it before, and the Zero's on the list.
> 
> Where the Hell is the Corsair?



Ah, yes, how could I have forgotten the Zero, and I agree with you on the Corsair.


----------



## Catch22 (Dec 3, 2008)

davparlr said:


> Ah, yes, how could I have forgotten the Zero, and I agree with you on the Corsair.



Or the Hellcat. I'm not a huge Hellcat fan, but both were better than the Zero.


----------



## Soren (Dec 4, 2008)

My list would be as follows:

The P-47, Fw-190, Me-262 F4U deserved a mention IMO.


----------



## timshatz (Dec 4, 2008)

Catch22 said:


> Or the Hellcat. I'm not a huge Hellcat fan, but both were better than the Zero.



I like the Hellcat too. Great airplane. Not sure if I would call it a "Greatest" (even though I am a great fan of the airplane), but it was the right airplane at the right time for the right pilots. Easy to fly, tough, fast enough and fairly nimble. If I had to fly in WW2 Pacific, it would be my plane of choice. 

But not the Greatest. Think the F4U was a better bird.


----------



## krieghund (Dec 4, 2008)

This just one of those nebulous topics that can go on for ever....can't compare apples to oranges to grapes.....

Of course the aircraft of greatest impact would have to be the Wright Flyer from which all others are derived.


----------



## Messy1 (Dec 4, 2008)

I agree that the Harrier does not belong on this list. There are so many more deserving actual fighters that put the Harrier to shame. I do not know why it is even on here. Where's the F-14? Although not a pure dog fighter, it has many more air to air kills than the Harrier. Where's the P-38? Hell, Where's the P40? All much better examples of fighter aircraft than the Harrier.


----------



## Waynos (Dec 4, 2008)

krieghund said:


> This just one of those nebulous topics that can go on for ever....can't compare apples to oranges to grapes.....
> 
> Of course the aircraft of greatest impact would have to be the Wright Flyer from which all others are derived.




Not true.

The Wright was a deliberately unstable canard (like the Eurofighter Typhoon!) whereas most aircraft that followed were stable tailed designs, exemplefied by the RAF BE2. Also the Wright was not a fighter either, and was itself derived from the work of Cayley, Stringfellow, Chanute, Lillienthal and others.


----------



## krieghund (Dec 4, 2008)

So your saying the Wright's stole from designs that had not yet flown?

I just think it has it's place for creating the spark to get ev everyone in the air.


----------



## 109ROAMING (Dec 5, 2008)

timshatz said:


> I can see the 117 because of stealth. It would be something like the Fokker Eindecker, first to do it and that makes it notable. But greatest is too open to perspective.
> 
> Agree with you on the DR1, too slow, blind alley as far as a fighter is concerned (if three is good, would four be better?). Also think the F18 is a very good aircraft but...so? It hasn't spent time in a serious conflict and a great aircraft needs that. Also, the Mig21 was a good bird and an interesting way to go but not head and shoulders above any of the other aircraft out there.
> 
> ...




Couldn't agree more on the 109 and Spitire

both in my opinion are better than the P-51 

109 would proberly take the cake for me -served the whole war ,was a threat both at the start and end ,looks cool.Lethality.Fear.Deadliness

I agree Catch where the hell was the Corsair on that episode???


----------



## Waynos (Dec 5, 2008)

krieghund said:


> So your saying the Wright's stole from designs that had not yet flown?
> 
> I just think it has it's place for creating the spark to get ev everyone in the air.



Stole is hardly the right word, all the pioneers learned from each other, and several of the preceding designs HAD flown, albeit unpowered or in model form. You can hardly hold the fact that the vital ingredient, petrol engine, had not yet been invented against these great aeronautical pioneers. The Wrights themselves acknowledged the debt they owed to their predecessors. 

The Wrights did not create the spark, that was around for centuries. Where the Wrights won their place in history was in being the first to take the various threads of development that had gone before, inject a lot of research of their own on top ( including a light and reliable engine) , and build the first controllable powered man carrying aeroplane that worked. 

They didn't actually 'invent' anything and if they hadn't done it in 1903, someone else would have soon afterwards because lots of designers were also on the right lines. 

This was a race, it was not something that the Wright brothers pulled out of their arses completely out of the blue. However they did do it and that is their legacy, but relatively little of what followed was based on their design.


----------



## krieghund (Dec 5, 2008)

Contraire mon fraire!!!

To say simply that the Wright Brothers invented the airplane doesn't begin to describe their many accomplishments. Nor is it especially accurate. The first fixed-wing aircraft -- a kite mounted on a stick -- was conceived and flown almost a century before Orville and Wilbur made their first flights. The Wrights were first to design and build a flying craft that could be controlled while in the air. Every successful aircraft ever built since, beginning with the 1902 Wright glider, has had controls to roll the wings right or left, pitch the nose up or down, and yaw the nose from side to side.

Among the Wright's firsts;

First powered controlled flight 1903
First pracitcal aircraft "Model 1905 Flyer"
First to patent aircraft type and controlling mechanisms

Aug 8, 1907 Demonstrated banking turns to crowds in France (Bleriot Archdeacon congratulated them) Remember at this time other flyers could only perform flat turns. All this despite negative articles in the European press and comments from their peers.


First Military aircraft Dec 23, 1907
First to carry civilain pasenger, May 14, 1908

They had plenty of politics and other trials against them but over time they were vindicated of all the false accusations.

Unfortunately our modern history courses tend to marginalize great events of the Past.


----------



## pbfoot (Dec 5, 2008)

Did not Glen Curtiss develop the aileron allowing banking turns rather then wing warping, and the Wrights were aholes for suing Curtiss


----------



## kool kitty89 (Dec 5, 2008)

Gustave Whitehead - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 

Somthing interesting to note, like some of the preceding pioneering glider flights. Not a fully controlable craft (similar to the earlier gliders -shifting the pilots weight to acheive roll/turn control) Not the acheivments of the Wrights, but a significant note, particularly given Whitehead's background.

Certainly a bigger note than the spectacular failure that was Langley's "Aerodrome." The Smithsonian's insistance on Langley that "he was first" consequently the reason the Wright Flyer not being part of the Smithsonian until 1948 and with the coresponding leagal "contract" which unfortunately prevents Whitehead's recognition. (though thechnically Whitehead's acheivement wouldn't contradict that as it wasn't a truely "controlled" flight)


The biggest acheivement of the Wright designs was the development of full directional control. (pitch, yaw, and roll)


----------



## kool kitty89 (Dec 5, 2008)

pbfoot said:


> Did not Glen Curtiss develop the aileron allowing banking turns rather then wing warping, and the Wrights were aholes for suing Curtiss



They didn't sue Curtiss over the ailerons, but over their patents on the aircraft design. (Curtiss's 1908 "June Bug" did use the same general configuration as the Wright aircraft, save for the ailerons and propeller)






Somewhat ironically Curtiss ended up merging with the later Wright Aernautical to form the Curtiss-Wright corporation. (albeit a year before Glen Curtiss died)




Waynos said:


> The Wright was a deliberately unstable canard (like the Eurofighter Typhoon!) whereas most aircraft that followed were stable tailed designs, exemplefied by the RAF BE2. Also the Wright was not a fighter either, and was itself derived from the work of Cayley, Stringfellow, Chanute, Lillienthal and others.



That canard layout was used for a good while in early designs, being fairly prevalent in Curtiss's early designs Curtiss Aircraft not to mention others like the Bristol Boxkite.


----------



## Marcel (Dec 6, 2008)

Waynos said:


> Not true.
> 
> The Wright was a deliberately unstable canard (like the Eurofighter Typhoon!) whereas most aircraft that followed were stable tailed designs, exemplefied by the RAF BE2. Also the Wright was not a fighter either, and was itself derived from the work of Cayley, Stringfellow, Chanute, Lillienthal and others.



The one thing that he Wrights "invented" was controllability over all 3 axis, while all previous pioneers only thought of the vertical and horizontal dimentions. That is where the Wrights were had their influence. *All* other pioneers learned from the Wright brothers how to really control an airplane. To say the Flyer was not influential is like saying that Amsterdam is not in the Netherlands.


----------



## Waynos (Dec 6, 2008)

Yes, it was influential, of course it was. And historic, KK provided a list of aircraft with a common layout that owed much to the Wright. That does not contradict anything I said.

However, The Antoinette was not, the Demoiselle was not, the Roe was not and the Bleriot was not based on the Wright Flyer, neither was the etrich Taube or indeed anything at all of any note that was built much after 1911. All of these were designed to be stable, as was everything else until the FBW era arrived, which was a different philosophy to that used by the Wrights.

That does not take away from the Wright achievement, but it is far cry from saying that everything that followed it was based on the Wright Flyer, because that was the point I took issue with. What is so hard to understand there?

It is the same as people who say things like the Wright Brothers invented the aeroplane. No, they did not. Many aeroplanes were built between 1840 and 1903 and several of them left the ground. It was all part of the learning process that started in earnest with George Cayley a century before the Wrights when he investigated, discoverd and set out the principles of flight that the Wrights themselves (and all the rest) used in their own research.

But they did achieve sustained powered and controlled flight before anyone else and that achievement was epoch making, but it isn't the same thing. Why is it that people seem unable to separate the two?


----------



## kool kitty89 (Dec 6, 2008)

I agree on that acheivement, as I posted in post #21. The control mechanisms they developed were important. (and wing warping was more sucessful early on than ailerons)

I think that Whitehead's flight of "number 21" Number 21 (plane - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) in 1901 was probably the closest to a controlled, powered, manned, flight pror to the Wright Flyer. Pitch controlled by "tail wing" (elevator), some degree of yaw control by varying propeller thrust, no roll control other than shifting the pilot's weight.

The configuration of "Number 21" was also much closer to to later aircraft (particularly early monoplanes like the Taube)



But, as pointed out earlier, none of this has anyhing to due with fighter aircraft.

And if you want to talk revolutions in aircraft design, you'd have to include the Junkers J 1, first all-metal (sheet steel) cantilever monoplane. (1915) And the J 2 experimental fighter of similar construction. (1916)

And in terms of fighters, the J 9, the first all-metal (corrugated aluminum) cantilever monoplane fighter to enter service. (in 1917)


----------



## Waynos (Dec 7, 2008)

Agreed, discussing the pioneers would be better suited to another board.


----------



## delcyros (Dec 7, 2008)

timshatz said:


> The Tripehound was a better plane than the DR1. Faster, better built. Underarmed in comparison. But the manuverability of the Sop was not the reason the three wings were used. It was for visability.
> 
> The Germans got it wrong, thought it was for climb and manuver.



Technically aerodynamically, the Fokker DR-I is a generation ahead of the Triplane. It had a larger envelope of flight, more foregiving stall charackteristics, better climb, roll turn.
It was one of the first braceless designs and the first to use Göttingen airfoils instead of thin ones. Judging from the low performance powerplant, it´s speed implies a very clean aerodynamic concept, much more advanced than that of the Sopwith.


----------



## davparlr (Dec 7, 2008)

The Wright plane was not a fighter. Sorry for hijacking my own thread, but I can’t let this ride.



Waynos said:


> and was itself derived from the work of Cayley, Stringfellow, Chanute, Lillienthal and others.


Concerning the contributions of previous designers, Wilbur Wright wrote
"Of all the men who attacked the flying problem in the 19th century, Otto Lilienthal was easily the most important. ... It is true that attempts at gliding had been made hundreds of years before him, and that in the nineteenth century, Cayley, Spencer, Wenham, Mouillard, and many others were reported to have made feeble attempts to glide, but their failures were so complete that nothing of value resulted." 

As valuable as Lilienthal was, it must be noted here that the Wright Brothers had to discard all of his, and all other, aero data as faulty and decided they had to develop their own data, which they did and it was quite superior. In 1903, the Wright Brothers were the preeminent aerodynamist in the world due to their wind tunnel experiments.

From Further Gliding and Wind Tunnel Experiments - 1901
"They used 38 different model airfoils for these tests. These airfoils had an assortment of cambers, thickness, and shapes, including squares, rectangles, ellipses, uneven tips, and half circles, which they tested in different combinations. They tested single-wing and multiple-wing configurations. It was tedious and exacting work, requiring each wing shape be tested at 45 different angles. But by mid-December 1901, they had discovered, much to their surprise, that Lilienthal's tables were largely correct. It was Smeaton's coefficient that was wrong. The brothers also found the camber, or curvature, of Lilienthal's wings was inefficient. To remedy this, they designed wings with more of a parabolic curve that placed the high point of the wing about one-fourth of the way back down the chord from the leading edge rather than at its center, as Lilienthal had. 

There was one other area where they had erroneously relied on Lilienthal's tables. They did not correct for the differences in the aspect ratio between Lilienthal's wing and the wings of their gliders. In other words, the proportion between the wingspan and the wing's chord length was different. This also affected the amount of lift generated.

Wilbur and Orville spent the rest of 1901 using their wind tunnel to answer some remaining questions regarding the shape and location of the wings. Through their methodical approach, they had achieved what no one had done before and answered questions that had remained unanswered for years. The brothers were sure they were right. Now they were ready to return to Kill Devil Hills and fly."



> They didn't actually 'invent' anything


By your definition, there probably is no such thing as an inventor, as almost every “inventor” works with things other people have discovered. In reality, people who pull all the parts together are often given the title inventor, be it Bell, Edison, Morse, or the Wright Brothers.




> and if they hadn't done it in 1903, someone else would have soon afterwards because lots of designers were also on the right lines.


Huh? I don’t think because the Wright flew in 1903, everybody stopped working on flight themselves, nor do I think their failure would have sped up develop work.





> This was a race, it was not something that the Wright brothers pulled out of their arses completely out of the blue. However they did do it and that is their legacy, but relatively little of what followed was based on their design.



This is greatly untrue.



pbfoot said:


> Did not Glen Curtiss develop the aileron allowing banking turns rather then wing warping, and the Wrights were aholes for suing Curtiss



I don’t understand this comment. They won the suit. Only WWI changed everything by nullifying all legal action.

As far as ailerons are concerned, the patent that the Wright Brothers filed stated that the construction they selected did not alleviate the patent from covering other implementations that performed the same function. Little wonder they won. I would have sued too. 



Waynos said:


> Yes, it was influential, of course it was. And historic, KK provided a list of aircraft with a common layout that owed much to the Wright. That does not contradict anything I said.
> 
> However, The Antoinette was not, the Demoiselle was not, the Roe was not and the Bleriot was not based on the Wright Flyer, neither was the etrich Taube or indeed anything at all of any note that was built much after 1911. All of these were designed to be stable, as was everything else until the FBW era arrived, which was a different philosophy to that used by the Wrights.


You’re saying that they did not have control functions for roll, yaw and pitch. Or you are saying that those are minor functions. Saying the Wright flyer was not influential because of it canard design is like say that Karl Benz first car was not influential because it only had three wheels.



> That does not take away from the Wright achievement, but it is far cry from saying that everything that followed it was based on the Wright Flyer, because that was the point I took issue with. What is so hard to understand there?


Maybe because all aircraft control roll, pitch and yaw.



> It is the same as people who say things like the Wright Brothers invented the aeroplane. No, they did not. Many aeroplanes were built between 1840 and 1903 and several of them left the ground. It was all part of the learning process that started in earnest with George Cayley a century before the Wrights when he investigated, discoverd and set out the principles of flight that the Wrights themselves (and all the rest) used in their own research.


Don’t forget Isaac Newton for defining his three laws, which affects everything, so I guess being an inventor is impossible.



> But they did achieve sustained powered and controlled flight before anyone else and that achievement was epoch making, but it isn't the same thing. Why is it that people seem unable to separate the two?


Its close enough for government work. 
This is the process these two bicycle mechanics used in developing the airplane

1.	Data search
2.	Utilizing known data, made design
3.	built design
4.	tested design
5.	analyzed test comparing test results with projected results
6.	Errors indicated known data in error
7.	Decided to generate own data
8.	Designed and Built wind tunnel
9.	Designed and built wind tunnel test equipment
10.	Ran test
11.	Analyzed test results
12.	Redesigned airplane
13.	Verified test results
14.	Designed and built and efficient propeller 
15.	Designed and built engine with considerable support from Charlie Taylor, the first aircraft mechanic.
16.	Flew design
17.	Documented development and flight.

Any engineer would recognize this sequence of events as the same sequence used in modern aircraft development. The Wright Brothers not only just “invented” the first successful aircraft, they engineered the invention.

I was a design engineer for advanced aircraft for 29 years and I am amazed at their genius. They were:
1. Outstanding engineers
2. Outstanding problem solvers
3. The most knowledgeable aerodynamist in world in 1900 and had the most comprehensive and accurate airfoil data in the world, which they generated. 
4. The most experienced pilots in the world in 1903, and were excellent pilots. The Flyer was very difficult to fly.
5. Detailed documentation of their research and manufacture. Only their engine is poorly documented. 


To fly is not hard. Make a big kite and jump off a hill. To make a controlled flight is not hard, just move your body. To make a powered controlled flight is not hard, add an engine. To design and make a powered, controlled flight in a useful manner that all future aircraft would use, with no useable aero data, took genius.


----------



## Messy1 (Dec 7, 2008)

All this from 2 bicycle mechanics! Truly amazing!


----------



## Waynos (Dec 7, 2008)

Davparlr, that was an excellent and informative post, in outlining what the Wrights achieved you are quite correct.

Unfortunately you have misunderstood much of what I said and seem to think I was wright bashing. 

You are too quick however to dismiss the achievements of those who went before.

The 'inventor' of the aeroplane was Cayley - in the sense that he was the first to etsablish that a a fixed wing, controllable tail and separate power source (driving a propeller rather than flapping the wings) was the way to do it. He was the first man to formulate the layout of the modern and practical aeroplane, he too undertook controlled experiments and established for the first time ever that a curved surface was needed for the wing. This seems obvious to us, but it wasn't then. Why would we be surprised to hear that the Wrights found flaws in his calculations? the astonishing thing would be if they did not, given that he started in the 18th century and NO ONE had done any of this before him. His understanding of the mechanics of flight ought be something that we today find amazing, rather than something to be dismissed. His design for a VTOL convertiplane that foreshadowed such as the V-22 by 150 years is an illustration of his genius. Yes, the design looks silly today, but it was a proper design, showing an understanding of what was needed rather than strapping doves to a bedstead like so many other madcap schemes.

Your dismissal that such things were 'easy' is crass and very wrong. When Clement Ader became the first man to take off in a powered aeroplane in 1890 - was that easy? Really?



> Huh? I don’t think because the Wright flew in 1903, everybody stopped working on flight themselves, nor do I think their failure would have sped up develop work.



Neither do I, sorry but I don't get what you are trying say here as it appears not to relate to the passage you quoted above it. Even if the Flyer 1 had failed to get off or had crashed in 1903, their invaluable work was already being replicated in other countries, Voisin was flying Wright type gliders in 1902 and was hard at work in applying the design to a powered aeroplane, which he later achieved - this is an example of where they were influential, and of course their principles of flight were definitive due to the depth of research they applied to the work, but had they themselves failed these principles would not have been forgotten, just as they took their own lead from what had gone before, so would those who followed them, that is a natural progression.



> This is greatly untrue.



In the first few years it was, I'll grant you. But the design of the Flyer was a developmental dead end and everyone moved on at such a pace that only ten years later all such designs looked like antiques - rather like the Comet was the first jetliner, but was the 707 based on it? No, because Boeing found a much better waywhich WAS the basis for 99% of future jetliners, and so it was with aeroplane design in general in the first decade of powered flight. 



> You’re saying that they did not have control functions for roll, yaw and pitch. Or you are saying that those are minor functions. Saying the Wright flyer was not influential because of it canard design is like say that Karl Benz first car was not influential because it only had three wheels.



No, I'm not saying that at all. Like I have already pointed out twice, the Wright was deliberately unstable, designers quickly moved on to designs that were naturally stable, this is a completely different princple that the wrights actually disagreed with. By your argument you seem to be saying that the QM2 is based on the SS Great Britain because it floats and is made of metal.

Here you are, the 2nd person to try and argue with me that the Wright Flyer was influential. Yes? and are you going to tell me that grass is green and water is wet too?

Maybe it is the term 'based on' that is causing the confusion? To me, when something is based on something else, it uses that as a pattern. ie the Boeing 707 was based on the 367-80, as were, over time, the 727 and 737 and E-3 etc However none of these were based on the Wright Flyer. To me this is obvious, but yet we have people arguing the point? Voisin and Bristol for example used the Wright to base their aeroplanes on as it was the best pattern available at the time. Again, read the line I am arguing with.



> so I guess being an inventor is impossible



No, but its often thankless and some other herbert ends up getting the credit.


----------



## kool kitty89 (Dec 7, 2008)

Waynos said:


> Agreed, discussing the pioneers would be better suited to another board.



There is a forum for that here. 1800-1914 - Aircraft of World War II - Warbird Forums


The most lasting acheivement of the Wrights to be used on subsequet aircraft was the wing warping system, such used on the early monoplane millitary aircraft like the Taube and Fokker Eindecker. (which is substancially different IMO, pertaining to Curtiss's development, though others were working on similar devices I think Curtiss was the first to use it successfully)

The configuration found in nature (on birds, minus the vertical tail surface) used by Whitehead, and on the Taube is the configuration used on almost all subsequent designs: tractor propeller(s) tail surfaces to the rear on a central fuselage.





delcyros said:


> Technically aerodynamically, the Fokker DR-I is a generation ahead of the Triplane. It had a larger envelope of flight, more foregiving stall charackteristics, better climb, roll turn.
> It was one of the first braceless designs and the first to use Göttingen airfoils instead of thin ones. Judging from the low performance powerplant, it´s speed implies a very clean aerodynamic concept, much more advanced than that of the Sopwith.



The use of a cantilever wing was quite innovative and came as a result of collaboration with Junkers who had previously developed the even more revolutionary all-metal cantilever monoplane J 1.

I agree on the airframe of the Dr.I. Though one of the cleanest fighter designs of the war (possibly the cleanest other than Junkers' metal designs) was the Fokker D.VIII. (with exceptional performance despite the modest powerplant)


----------

