97. Mitsubishi Zero
More so than any other of its aircraft, the Mitsubishi Zero epitomized Japan's World War II air capabilities. Renowned for its strength as a dogfighter, the lightweight, agile airplane was the first naval fighter that could outperform land aircraft. The Zero would see prolific use throughout the war, as a total of approximately 11,000 of the fighters were produced through 1945, the most by far of any Japanese airplane. With the capability to reach speeds up to 350 mph and a range just shy of 2,000 miles, the aircraft gave the Japanese an early upper hand in combat, one that would subside later in the war with the introduction of more apt American fighters.
Related:
Get exclusive online content like this delivered straight to your inbox by signing up for our free enewsletter.
All Comments
re: #88, the HS-125, that's twice recently that Flying has forgotten that this aircraft began life as the de Havilland DH-125. Although Hawker Siddley had purchased the DH before development began the design and construction was undertaken by de Havilland. It did not become the HS-125 until after more than 80 aircraft were built and in service. Thus it was the final design (not counting de Havilland Canada and Australia) to come out of a company whose history goes back to before World War I.
Glad to see the Bonanza in the top 10 where it belonged. Not sure if I would have put the Cub as number one but it is the most reconizable plane there is since people call every plane a cub!
I think that there are just too many airplanes 102 is too much. Of the same category for instance single engine piston and turboprop you listed them all; excellent examples but none being much better than the others. Ditto insofar corporate jets, virtually all of them are there. Did not see the DC-4 or DC-6B. And there is one that should not have been ever built the Osprey 22, a horrible cross between a helo and fixed wing. I think that you should ask the same experts to slim the list to no more than 50 and lets see what happens. Nice try though.
There is no doubt that all of the airplanes selected in this list, for one reason or another, were worthy of being included. For twenty years in the Navy, I flew in the A-6 Intruder and, to this day, I don't understand why its unique and ground-breaking capabilities are not often recognized. It became operational in the early '60s and incorporated the most leading-edge technologies of its time. Originally designated the A-6A, it got even better and more effective with later models such as the A-6E TRAM. Recognition of it has probably been hampered by its looks. With its bulbous nose, wide body (needed to accommodate side-by-seating by its crew (pilot and bombardier-navigator) and non-afterburning engines, it was not seen to be glamorous. Yet, it performed missions unheard of by any aircraft before or since (with perhaps the exception of night-vision equipped pilots of some modern aircraft). Before its retirement in 1996, the A-6 was never approved for foreign-military sales. I think there is a reason for this: it was too good. From the beginning of its operational status, the Navy understood that this airplane was designed to fly at the extremely low altitudes needed to evade enemy air search and surface-to-air-missile/AAA radars and the training was designed to teach this skill. Tactics for flying this airplane, with its unique capabilities, were honed in the early years of the Vietnam conflict. By the time that I arrived in combat over North Vietnam in 1972, many lessons had been learned, and first-timers, like myself, had many seasoned veterans as mentors. Over North Vietnam at night, until the very end of the air war, fundamentally, in December of 1972, when B-52s were finally ordered to strike Hanoi and Haiphong, the only U.S. military aircraft striking targets deep within North Vietnam at night were A-6s. The Air Force's F-111, with a similar mission, was introduced late in the war, but its pilots and weapons officers were still learning and they suffered early losses impacting the ground learning how to fly the new system. A typical night mission for the A-6 was begun crossing the beach at 500 feet. If pressed by a SAM or AAA-site, descent to 200 feet was not uncommon. I defy any airplane in the world, now and going back to the Wright brothers, to have done this, night after night, hundreds of times. True, we had our losses. As one of my mentors once said, "We kill our weak ones." But our successful missions, flying at these altitudes, outnumbered our losses by huge margins. Plus, the A-6 had many other workhorse attributes. Great fuel capacity versus consumption. Speed at sea-level approaching the speed of sound. Product of the Grumman "Ironworks." The A-6 absorbed damage and lived to return. During my Vietnam deployment, one of our airplanes got a little bit too low near Haiphong and flew through the tops of trees on a karst ridge and, with a single hydraulic failure and big gouges out of its engine intakes and the equivalent of a tree stuffed into its wing, recovered back aboard. The A-6 and its crews served this country for 36 years, or so, in a way that no other aircraft did. It deserves mention.
I am fortunate to currently own two of the top 100 planes - a J-3 Cub and a Cirrus SR22, but am rather put off by the failure of your editors to include a former plane of mine, any model of Maule (the longest running family owned airplane company in US History - and incidentally NOT being sld to China...) nor did they include the Flightstar (both early models and current CTs, CTLS, etc.) Tom Peghiny and his company sell the best selling light sport aircraft in the US and the world. Noting those two glaring absences, I nonetheless enjoyed the run down of some memorable and historic airplanes.
Ah yes What would have been the stae of affairs had Beech made a SE Be 90C some years ago? It took Pilartus to find out. O)ne very praticle aircraft and no doubt, the dream machine of many pilots looking for something that needs to be understood before it will let you fly it. Strange that the POH is an average size book while that of the TBM 850 is in two volumes Pilartus warn about moving the PCL past the stop with a still energine TBM spell it out, Doing so will cause a lot of damage to the linage to the FCU (A very costly mistake to make in both aircraft) But then it is an Aero which demads a pilot know how to fly it
"Top 100 Airplanes" ... could there be a better way to cause a room full of mild-mannered pilots to devolve into a bloody cage fight? I don't think so. Maybe I've watched too much Simpsons but I can just picture it: 12:01pm - Calm. The list is released. 12:02 pm - full riot with furniture/roof on fire.
Interesting list, but hghly subjective.
And to be in "The 100 most influential aircraft of all time," you most certainly have to be an older aircraft, which I guess explains why the newer breakthrough products (e.g. Boeing 787, DiamondStar, TBM 700, etc) are near bottom of list.
And, it should be called the "Top 100 Aircraft", not "Top 100 Airplanes", as we do have rotorcraft, powered-lift, lighter-than-air, and even glider (Space Shuttle), in addition to all the airplanes.
well, first thing is that 100 airplanes are too much!!!
Second thing, only mig-21 from the soviets?
Just one plane???
Regarding 'both american and british innovation' in development of the Harrier; the aircraft was originally designed solely by UK companies, the US only became involved during the USMC export effort when McDonnell Douglas teamed up with Hawker Siddeley, later to become British Aerospace/BAe Systems.
The Harrier's successor on the other hand, the F-35 has been a joint effort between Lockheed and BAe from the start.
# 67 Hindengurg is not an airplane!
# 62 & #16 - G650 never exceeded Mach 1 during flight testing, Citation X did. Sorry Gulfstream, Citation X is still faster, even if it's certified with a higher MMO, the 'Ten' can still take it back!
#51 The aircraft pictured is a Spitfire Mk V or later, with 4 machine guns and two cannons, not eight machine guns. Also, though the Spitfire was formidable, the Hawker Hurricane actually bore the brunt of the battle of Britain.
#36 Jet ranger is not an airplane!
#31 - Bf109 Struggled to gain government support? Read Ernst Heinkel's autobiography Stürmisches Leben and it paints a different picture. He112 would have been a superior fighter if the 1933 fighter competition had been fair and unbiased, but Heinkel had already won several bomber contracts and the government wanted to spread the work around - the Bf109 was given a more powerful engine, but Bf109 had a higher wing loading than He112, which resulted in it being a worse turn-fighter with less favorable stall characteristics. Ultimately this made it an easier match for allied fighters later in the war. He112 could have made the battle of Britain altogether much more challenging for the Spitfires and Hurricanes.
#12 The first Learjets were actually clean-sheet designs, Bill might have been influenced by the FFA P16, but those who claim it used 'the same wing' are incorrect.
#3 It seems often forgotten that the P-51 Mustang was initially a disapointment, designed to meet an RAF specification, but was initially underpowered and under-gunned with the Allison engine and only 4 .303 calibre machine guns. After being re-engined with the Merlin powerplant used on the Spitfire, Hurricane, Mosquito, Lancaster etc. and re-armed with the 6 .50 cals it became much more formidable.
I applaud your bravery in publishing such a list. I'm certain you were aware of the hazards of not including any man's first love in the top 100. That said, allow me to pile on... NO TOMCAT? The aircraft that for 30+ years, no other machine could both fly faster AND slower than... and it did it from the boat. It was a bloody Swiss watch under those panels, analog computers moving jackscrews and a pilot with a really long pipe handle, moving push/pull rods that ran 50+ feet. It was an engineering marvel and the most beautifully vicious aircraft to ever fly.
I feel so much better now. Thanks for stimulating the day a bit!
Having done a similar Top Aircraft list for a flight museum, choosing the Top 100 was a daunting task for Flying Magazine's staff!
The key to ranking is the term "influential" which was chosen. Case in Point: The #58 Embraer Phenom is in no way within 3 places of #55 Boeing's 747. The Phenom, while a great platform, has not impacted the lives of millions of people and changed the air passenger/aircargo industry for decades. Based on influence, the Phenom, Eclipse 500, and Piaggio can not be ranked where they are, probably do not make the Top 100 in terms of influence.
Second Case in Point, the Bell X-1 influenced an entire generation to pursue careers in aviation and engineering. This can not be said of the Embraer, etc. Good effort thoughh and fun to countdown!
I was very disappointed to see that the plane that won the Battle of Britain was excluded. Certainly the Spitfire deserved a mention.
It was a wonderfull trip down memory lane.
Thank you, thank you, THANK YOU.
Jerry Berk
My Apologies...I seem to be blind besides being old. I went thru the list twice and missed it both times.
Regarding Flying Mag's Twitter Question regarding who should be #1, the DC-3 has merit as Numero Uno as it has: 70+ years active service, an impeccable safety record, it's shape is "iconic" and one of the most recognizable, and unlike the Cub which performed well in one or two dimensions, the venerable DC-3 has performed exemplary in FOUR key aviation facets: Passenger, Military, Cargo, and Forest Fire Fighting. Granted the DC-3 pilots trained in Cubs, but the DC-3 clearly has had more influence over more areas: people (it's safety gave passengers in the fledgling airline business confidence they would live through the rough flight), transport (it's still hauling frieght), military (D-Day, the Hump, to Vietnam) over more a longer active time. Great debate! Wings level!
The Spitfire is a Mk IXb, the 'b' indicating it had the wing design with one cannon and two .303. machine guns on each side -- ultimately the most preferred armament configuration. The initial spec for the Spitfire was eight machine guns -- which is what all the early marks had. At first, during the Battle of Britain, the cannon armament was controversial, and it set pilots Bob Stanford Tuck and Douglas Bader up in arms against each other. Bader, famous as the Battle of Britain hero who flew with two artificial legs, preferred eight guns; Tuck wanted cannons. (Later, Bader and Tuck became close friends. I once asked Tuck about Bader's stubborness over this, and his response was, "If he wasn't so bloody stubborn, he bloody well wouldn't have been there, would he?")
I cannot understabombernd how the first swept wing bomber and best looking airplane ever built (B-47 Stratojet) did not make the list.
I love the B-47 too! It was hard to leave off the list. There are too many others that were REALLY hard to leave off, let me tell you.
"The P-38 Lightning was the only American fighter produced throughout all of World War II, from Pearl Harbor to V-J Day. "
Au contraire. The Wildcat, Mustang, Corsair, and Thunderbolt were all in production before Pearl Harbor through VJ Day. BTW, World War II began 27 months before Pearl Harbor.
Anyone flying magazine that would rate the SR-71 as #89 of 100 has their head up their stinger. Really? Please explain the logic of your choices.
The SR-71 was a strategic camera platform similar to a satellite, not an interesting aircraft to pilots. The sleek shape appeals to the eye, but it wasn't a thrill to fly (it's a lot of high, straight and level), the speed isn't sensed in any way except on takeoff acceleration.
Compare that against all the GA aircraft (from Piper Cubs to Gulfstreams), warbirds (prop and jet), airliners, etc., that pilots and passengers relate to a lot more than one super performance bird.
A top 100 aircraft has to have an impact on everyone's flying experience, and the SR-71 while an Internet glamour girl, was basically a really fast camera for Generals.
A list of criteria would be helpful. Without one, the list is just a hodge podge of aircraft. I suggest:
• Game changer: how did the aircraft change the face of aviation;
• Service life/production run help measure the long-term influence of the aircraft on aviation
• Contribution to our understanding of flight and influence on future design
With these characteristics in mind, I suggest several additions at the expense of the many GA aircraft that meet few, if any, of these characteristics or simply duplicate the performance of other aircraft in the top 100 such TBM 700/850 and Piper Meridian which are pretty much the same plane as are the many different Cessna and Piper models:
Grumman F-6-F Hellcat
This fighter was a game changer and key to US victory in the Pacific. It was superior to all variants of the Zero and at least equal to any Japanese prototypes/low production aircraft produced at the end of the war. It incorporated many innovative features (self-sealing gas tanks; rugged, battle resistant construction; wide-stance hydraulic landing gear). The Hellcat was agile and lethal in air-to-air combat achieving a 13:1 kill ratio. Huge production run. While the F-4-U made significant contributions during WW II, the Hellcat was the deciding factor in the air/naval war. The Corsair deserves to remain on the list as an innovative aircraft with a long production run, lengthy service life into the jet age, multi-function aircraft operated by many air forces.
McDonald F-4 Phantom
Common on! Set the stage for two crew fighter/strike aircraft. Multi-function aircraft: supersonic interceptor, air superiority fighter, strike fighter, photo recon, wild weasel, tanker with massive payload, long range and high kill ratio with USN and Israeli aircrews. Only post Korean War aircraft to produce aces for USN and USAF. Front line fighter for USN, USAF and USMC for over two decades. Remains in service with several air forces fifty years after first flight. Only aircraft flown by both Blue Angels and Thunder birds. Huge production run over several decades.
McDonald F-15
Game changer with unsurpassed performance over three decades of service. No aircraft ever lost in air-to-air combat (over 100 kills against ZERO losses). Multi-function: air superiority, long range inceptor including hunter-killer role on extended range intercepts of Soviet Bear aircraft in teams with tankers and AWACs aircraft, strike fighter. Used by US, Japanese, Israeli and Saudi air forces. Huge, lengthy production run. Still holds several world records. US service life is projected at over fifty years and will likely be longer in other air forces.
X-15
Pioneered our understanding of the features and demands of extended supersonic, hyper sonic, sub-orbital flight which resulted in important design innovations for several generations of US aircraft.
Avro Lancaster bomber
Game changer: played key role in destroying German heartland. Highly effective aircraft in many different roles – area night bombing, daylight precision bombing including Tall Boy attacks on Tirpitz, maritime patrol. Very large production run. Easy to fly, safe aircraft (except for crew egress in the event of battle damage) with exceptionally long range and enormous bomb load.
De Havilland Mosquito
Game changer for multi-function aircraft out performing other aircraft in all roles as day/night fighter, daylight bomber, pathfinder, night bomber with “cookie cutter” bombs to make incendiaries more effective, fighter-bomber, torpedo bomber, photo recon. Long range, big payload. Innovative wooden (stealth) construction. Very low combat loss rate. Huge production run.
P-2-V Neptune
Revolutionized airborne anti-submarine warfare. Exceptionally long ranged, long service life (some remain in service today almost 70 years after first flight as aerial water/fire retardant bombers), large production run, excellent safety record.
Tupolov Bear
Game changer in maritime recon/strike role. Innovative design, very long range/endurance, long service life.
PBY
I don’t see how this aircraft is left off the list. It was a game changer, multi-function aircraft with an incredible service life and long production run – maritime patrol, night bombing, mine laying, air-sea rescue, recon, anti-submarine, fire fighter, cargo, flying fishing boat – you name it, the Catalina did it all for over 80 years.
I agree that publishing a list like this is guaranteed to start a spirited discussion about the validity of it contents. It would have been helpful to establish some criteria that would have helped us understand the decision making that went into this list...as it stands I don't get it.
Full disclosure, I am a retired military pilot and two of my rides appear on this list (B-52 & B-2).
First of all, I agree that the list is Airplane and you have a helicopter, a Zeppelin, and a spacecraft on the list and they would be poor choices in their categories, i.e. the R-22 is more influential than the UH-1, Black Hawk, Hind, or Igor Sikorsky's first helicopter? An air vehicle famous for exploding in spectacular fashion? Maybe an "influential aircraft accident list" would be in order?
Secondly, ALL the aircraft on this list are GOOD aircraft and worthy of recognition but "most influential" was specified...in what way was this arrived at? A poster above stated that the SR-71 was undeserving because it wasn't a thrill to fly and was only a camera platform for Generals?! My friends who flew it LOVED it and Presidents relied on it to influence foreign policy for 30 years...sounds pretty influential and all from an aircraft that was designed by guys with slide rules and is in many ways state-of-the-art 40 years later.
The list is very heavy on general aviation aircraft and that is fine because they are were most pilots start there career and earn their wings. But the Cessna 172 & 182 both belong in the top 10? They are not very technically challenging aircraft and would normally be considered variants of each other. Again, very important if their influential nature in the training environment is acknowledged, but then where is the T-37 or T-38; they trained half a century's worth of USAF pilots (T-38 still in service, built in the early '60s)? (Not to mention the T-2, T-33, etc.) The T-34 is representing but it is a derivation of the Bonanza, also on this list.
If influential is technical innovation and design influence, where is the Boeing 707? This design brought the World into the Jet Age, switched airliner design dominance from Douglas to Boeing, was the basis for several military designs, is still in service 50 years later in some places and if you look, all Boeing designs from 707 to 777 (including the B-52) have the "Boeing Nose" from the 707. Meanwhile, you have the Ercoupe on the list which is a novelty design, neat concept that was not influential in the design of other aircraft and was not built in what would be considered great numbers (I'm sure this comment won't induce any dissenting flames back my way, esp. from the Ercoupe owners).
The B-2 was not so much designed as invented, teaching the industry how to design a whole aircraft with CAD, build large structures (0r whole aircraft) with composites, introduce continuous curvature Stealth design (no future combat aircraft will not have this design feature baked in), development of some 100+ materials for use in the airframe...and it is 38, 20+ places behind the G-650, an evolutionary product just entering service and one of several T-tail, twin engine business aircraft on this list? Where is the F-117 or Have Blue? The invention of Stealth didn't make the influential list?!
Again, all these airplanes are worthy of praise, but I just don't understand what was considered influential when creating the list, given the omissions and inclusions.
Hear, hear Captain Pete...exactly...criteria would be good and yours make sense.
How did the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor make it to this list? Sure its advanced design was a marvel but its execution has been a nightmare. Initially plagued by development and production problems it duly secured a reputation as a flying coffin when forced into service. Multiple groundings later, this thing is hardly operational and too risky to deploy. The taxpayer paid billions and Lockheed Martin executives and their Republican friends are laughing all the way to the bank.
By the response, this selection was widely read but Flying has to redo the list, too many planes of the same category and a few real good ones left out. Also it should not rank No. 1 as the best and son, there are too many categories spanning 100 years each one having its own best example.
I can't argue with your choices, but I expected the DH Mosquito, with twin Merlins and a plywood fuselage, and probably the fastest fighter/bomber of WW2, to be on the list. It also was a very beautiful airplane.
The other omission in my opinion was the Twin Otter; with it's two PT6 engines it made history when it flew to Antarctica to rescue a seriously ill member of an expedition there, because it was capable of starting, albeit with some engine heaters, in the Antarctic winter.
Delete: F-22, V-22 Osprey, Falcon 50, Embraer Phenom 100, Bombardier Challenger, Airbus A320, Falcon 7X, Premier I, & Eclipse 500 as not influential enough.
That will leave room for the Mosquito, Hurricane, & B-47 (and three others).
I wonder what the criteria was to start the biggest brawl in aviation history. Now you have got the FAA involved and another damn FAA rule. To start another fight where is the Horten V2 Jet being a pivotal milestone in aviation. Ha -suck on that!
The BD-4 and accompanying book "How to Build Your Own Airplane" opened the door to homebuilding everywhere in the 1970's and really should have made this list hands down!
Too much add dollars behind the magazine to leave out the bizjets. Among those I'd have liked to see are the Douglas A-26 and the Aero Commander 520.
You may want to reconsider the ME-262 for the AR-234 as the first operational jet aircraft?
Fighter or Bomber one would argue first is first as we are discussing aircraft
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arado_Ar_234
And besides, what aviation enthusiast was not so taken-aback by the looks, features and functionality of this aircraft, I mean periscopes their only on submarines...right?
And oh that landing gear or was that a ski...d?
This is tough to ascertain, who could really choose,
SR-71 should be much further up that list...
Bell X1 Breaking the sound barrier...WOW unheard of..Almost #1
Ok, well give you the Cub...Super aircraft...
- I agree with "peetpilot" and others remove the "air Bag" from this list.
- Most influential aircraft should be the one that started it all...
#4 should this be #1 Write Flyer or should this be the Write 1902 Glider "Solved all problems with flight control"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_Glider
- B-25 Mitchell "Doolittle raid would not have been..." Lifted spirits of the Allies, swayed Axis tactics, response to Perl harbor, turning point in a major war.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_B-25_Mitchell
- AICHI M6A Seiran
An airplane that launches from a submarine...This was the Axis last dying effort to stab at thee!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aichi_M6A
- SpaceShipOne - first civilian in space...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceShipOne
- Sopwith Camel...This one may have been further up your list; however, seems in my day was highly recognized during WW I
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sopwith_Camel
The DeHavilland Mosquito was the fastest plane in WWII. A twin-engine fighter bomber could fly at 415 mph at up to 37,000 feet was made out of balsam and plywood. It was used as a pathfinder to place flares at the target in Germany to guide the thousands of bombers flying over the clouds. It was used with special made spherical bombs to break two dams in the Ruhr valley in Operation Chastise. I flew the Mosquito for about 250 hours operationally.
Congratulations on a great list. The F4U Corsair was an excellent choice. Hard to believe so many people seem to think the P-51 was a better airplane. Clearly not the case. The Corsair was, without a doubt, the finest single engine piston fighter of WWII. The fact that the Corsair did its work in the remote Pacific reduced publicity in comparison to aircraft in the European theater. One of a handful of aircraft to continue in production well after WWII. And, in the last recorded combat between WWII piston fighters, a Corsair downed a Mustang in the C. American Soccer Wars!
BTW, how many P-51s were lost in Korea to a "golden BB" in the liquid cooling system? Seems like the P-47 would have served far better in the ground support role sharing the same basic P&W R2800 engine which was air cooled and could bring plane and pilot home even with holes in the engine!
Interesting list, but I think it forgot to include two other aircraft I would consider more influential than many others on the list...the Bell 47 and the Huey. The Bell 47 was only the first certified helicopter, and without it, the Robinson R22 and the Jet Ranger wouldn't even be here!
Good list, but I agree with the commenter who noted the header, 100 Top Airplanes, should have been 100 Top Aircraft. Having been present at Shuttle launch and landing, I believe it qualifies in the latter category, but not the former.
The F-22 Raptor is special. It is significant, but not for the reasons stated. Simply put, it is the most spectacular bungle in military history. Perhaps a correction: No nation, ever, has dedicated such a huge portion of its precious resources to such an unworthy product.
The F-22 has been "operational" for a decade. It has never flown a combat mission and is not designed to achieve current combat objectives. The fleet is currently grounded because it kills its pilots (oxygen system failures), who refuse to fly. A financial monstrosity, the project has expended billions of dollars for a worthless, unusable product. We view here the catastrophic results of current military planning and implementation.
The F-22 is significant. It represents the most appalling example of indulgence for the military run wild. How many thousands, or millions, of our hungry kids could we have fed with these wasted billions of dollars? How many schools, and libraries, and parks, and inoculations could we have provided?
We have screwed up our priorities. "Honoring" the F-22 represents a spectacular failure of our decency, and values.
Damon Swank
WHOA!!!! Better check your aviation definitions. AIRPLANES are defined as Fixed Wing, Heavier than Air, Aircraft. Therefore, #76, 67 and 36 (Rotorcraft and Hindenburg) ARE NOT AIRPLANES. They are however AIRCRAFT. Maybe you should change the title of this feature to "TOP 100 AIRCRAFT"
WHOA!!!! Better check your aviation definitions. AIRPLANES are defined as Fixed Wing, Heavier than Air, Aircraft. Therefore, #76, 67 and 36 (Rotorcraft and Hindenburg) ARE NOT AIRPLANES. They are however AIRCRAFT. Maybe you should change the title of this feature to "TOP 100 AIRCRAFT"
If you read your issue of Flying, you'll see that I explain why it's called "Top 100 Airplanes" instead of "Top 100 Aircraft." When rotorcraft and lighter than air craft were added, it seemed a shame to rename the whole project because we'd felt generous enough to let a few stragglers in. We thought that most pilots would get it immediately, which millions of hits later has indeed has been the case. On a side note, let's face it: "aircraft is such a boring, generic word, on a par with "thing" or "stuff." On yet another side note, Goodyear is replacing its blimps (airbags) with zepplins (rigid air ships). Think we're going to start hearing all about the Goodyear Zepplins? Think again! Accuracy aside, thank goodness it's going to remain the "blimp." What is it that Emerson said about "consistency" again?
The only homebuilt in the list is an RV-3, when the 4, 6, 7, etc are better airplanes? And how any top 100 doesn't include the Lancair IVP is unfathomable to me. It's a 292 knot personal rocket ship with four seats that you can build in your garage and blow the doors off any other production piston single not intended for military use. There are only a couple of downsides of owning the "4":
1) Cruising at 292 knots up at FL240 it's a poor time builder, but who cares whe you're making time like that;
2) At 292 kts you can fly off a map in a hurry if you're unfocussed.
Also, no mention of other models of the Lancairs or Glasairs. A virtual bias against the most healthy segement of aviation for quite a while now, not too surprising from a magazine that shills for certified aircraft about 90% of the time.
"Pregnant Guppy"
Wernher von Braun stated that "The Guppy was the single most important piece of equipment to put a man on the moon in the decade of the 1960's."
Well Robert, I'm glad I read your warning in the September issue. The list is as good A330 as it can be A330 without being all too A330 scientific. Sure a bunch of folks will A330 complain about excluding their favorite airplane A330 and even come A330 away offended A330, as silly A330 as it would seem. That said, I will not subject A330 you to such harsh A330 criticism. Besides, there's already too A330 much French crap on the list A330 as it stands.
Mr. Antonov would agree, especially since he built a plane that could carry your Top 100 lineup in its fuselage.
Top Rated
Marketplace
Find great Products & Services!
Partner Pages
