Document created: 8 June 04
Air University Review, September-October 1971

100 Aircraft on Parade

Royal D. Frey

Webster defines “opinion” as a belief stronger than an impression but less strong than positive knowledge, also as a formal expression by an expert. Both H. F. King and John W. R. Taylor, who collaborated to produce Milestones of the Air,* are widely recognized as experts in the field of aviation history. They must now be considered as purveyors of understatement, for in the Foreword of the book Mr. Taylor—undoubtedly with the sanction of Mr. King—wrote “. . . the end product will, inevitably, cause controversy.”

* H. F. King, compiler, John W. R. Taylor, editor, Milestones of the Air: Jane’s 100 Significant Aircraft (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1969, $10.00), 158 pages.  

It is difficult to imagine any buff or student of aviation history reading this book and then not taking issue with the selection of at least one of the hundred aircraft chosen by these two men, regardless of their professional stature They wisely provided themselves a route of strategic withdrawal, for although the dust jacket infers that the book pertains to the one hundred significant aircraft in the annals of aviation, the Foreword says “one hundred of the most significant aircraft ever built,” suggesting that there are other aircraft of equal importance. This point, however, will probably escape the average reader, and he will assume from the dust jacket that King and Taylor have selected without condition what they consider to be the one hundred leading aircraft in aviation history.

Since Milestones of the Air is based upon interpretation of a vast amount of historical facts, it is without question a product of personal opinion. As the book’s reviewer, I admit to an average level of human frailties and in this am probably little different from other typical aviation enthusiasts. Although I fully agree with King and Taylor on many of their selections, I cannot help questioning their wisdom in selecting others, particularly since these aircraft are presented at the expense of some which I consider to be of much greater significance.

The criteria established by the authors for consideration and inclusion of aircraft in the book were three: that they “represent milestones in the technical or operational development of powered aircraft, introducing new design concepts, or advancing performance to a spectacular degree.” It is on these three points that I must take initial issue, for I believe they are much too limited to permit a full review of all aircraft that should have received consideration.

There should have been two additional criteria if the book were truly to present the most “significant” aircraft in aviation history. The first would have permitted consideration of those aircraft which have had such a profound effect upon the world of the past fifty or so years that they changed in some distinct manner important public attitudes of the day. The second would have permitted inclusion of aircraft that influenced the establishment and maintenance of overall national policies to an appreciable degree.

It is not difficult to substantiate this position. In 1927 Charles Lindbergh flew the Ryan NYP Spirit of St. Louis nonstop across the Atlantic. This single flight by this aircraft, the only one of its exact type built by Ryan, completely changed the face of aviation. It awakened the world to the potential of flight as did no other aircraft for years preceding and following its 1927 triumph. It completely captured the public’s imagination and, in reality, signaled the beginning of the golden era of aviation which lasted for more than a decade.

One has only to ask the man on the street, be he French, British, American, or any other nationality, to identify the Spirit of St. Louis flown by Lindbergh and then to identify the Vickers Vimy flown by Alcock and Brown. To which is given the greatest recognition and recall by the vast majority of people? Despite this lasting historic impression made by the NYP and its significant impact upon society, it apparently did not meet the criteria established by the authors, whereas the 1919 flight of the Vimy across the Atlantic did meet the criteria, even though its impact on society was fairly negligible.

Another excellent support of my position is the U.S. Air Force Convair B-36 intercontinental bomber. Apparently the authors did not consider the B-36 worthy of inclusion in their book. However, this aircraft was the only weapon possessed by the Free World in the late 1940s and early 1950s which could freely range over any potential target at any location on the face of the globe. National policy and military strategy, not only on the part of the United States but by its allies as well, were actually determined with the B-36 backstage, ready for use if needed. The fact that the aircraft was never employed in the role for which it was designed should not be permitted to detract from its tremendous significance and importance. In reality, the lack of any requirement to use it in retaliatory operations could be considered as the greatest of all testimonials of its true significance to history.

The Sikorsky Grand (p. 21) and the Dornier Do X (p. 66) were undoubtedly great design achievements of their eras, but what did they really contribute? In other words, would aviation history have been appreciably different had they never existed? Few competent historians would argue that either the Grand or the Do X was of greater importance to the world than the 380 or so B-36s, their bomb bays loaded with nuclear and thermonuclear weapons, which served so many years as freedom’s greatest cudgel against possible aggression.

This discussion brings to mind a situation that has occurred several times in the past. An individual, without doubt completely sincere, has come forth with what he believes is evidence that some unknown and unrecognized aviation pioneer made a successful powered, controlled flight prior to that of the Wright brothers in 1903. Without wishing to appear impertinent, one has only to ask, “So what?”

In order for any event to be of historic importance and significance to the world, it must have had some effect, favorable or otherwise, upon mankind. For the sake of discussion, let us assume that irrefutable evidence has just been discovered that a man in Finland made a successful powered and controlled flight in 1859 but that he did absolutely nothing to spread the knowledge he had gained and it went to the grave with him. Consequently, his success was of no real importance to the world in the evolutionary development of flight as were the lessons learned and recorded by such great men as Cayley, Lilienthal, and Chanute for the benefit of those who were to come after them.

In a similar manner, unless I have been misled in my study of aviation history, the existence of the Sikorsky Grand and the Do X had very little direct impact upon aviation. They did exist and they were flown successfully, but memory of them serves primarily as a tribute to the engineering genius of the men who designed them. In themselves, these aircraft are now little more than oddities of the past.

Another aircraft that had a significant impact upon the world, although in a more subtle manner, was the Handley Page 0/400 bomber of the late World War I period.  It was the 0/400, along with the Caproni (p. 34), that made such a deep impression on Billy Mitchell. Employed by the British Independent Air Force, the 0/400 flew at night from Ochey near Toul, France, on strategic bombing missions against targets inside Imperial Germany. Realizing the great potential of the plane, Mitchell devised a plan for 60 squadrons of 0/400s, 20 planes per squadron, which were to drop paratroopers and equipment behind German lines in 1919 in the manner that became so important militarily during World War II. Although Mitchell died in 1936 without ever seeing his dreams realized by the U.S. Army, he left a legacy that did, indeed, become reality. The exact degree to which his revolutionary ideas were based upon the existence of the 0/400 can never be more than conjecture, but the part played by the 0/400 in the subsequent formulation of Mitchell’s plans for a massive force of strategic bombers striking deep behind enemy lines cannot be denied.

Although the authors did not include lighter-than-air  (LTA) vehicles in their book, whether by intent or oversight, LTA craft do qualify as aircraft: “a weight-carrying structure for navigation of the air that is supported either by its own buoyancy or by the dynamic action of the air against its surfaces.” Accepting this definition by Webster, the reader must agree that the famed Hindenburg should have received appropriate consideration. The loss of this dirigible at Lakehurst, New Jersey, in 1937 sounded the death knell for the rigid airship, for military as well as commercial applications. Although there have been periodic attempts to revive the rigid airship during the past 35 years, for all practical purposes the dirigible is gone and with it the dreams and aspirations of those who toiled so diligently through the decades to make it a practical and acceptable aircraft. The Hindenburg did have an appreciable impact upon aviation and our society, though in a negative manner. It was, without question, quite significant to aviation history.

The Messerschmitt Me 323, a military transport developed from a towed glider (p.108), appears to me to be of doubtful significance when compared to the Horsa and Waco invasion gliders that were so highly important and successful during World War II. Although the authors did specify “powered aircraft” for consideration, this is another point on which they should have relented, in that gliders do satisfy the definition for aircraft. Without question, the Horsa and Waco gliders made greater contributions to the world than those made by the contemporary Me 323 or such other aircraft as the Mini Guppy, the Pregnant Guppy, and the Super Guppy, all aviation monstrosities. (p. 144) True, the Me-323 did incorporate the features of nose-opening doors and multiple-wheel landing gear, but did these technological advancements have a greater overall effect on the history of mankind than the tremendous roles played by the Horsa and Waco gliders in helping the Western Allies defeat Nazi Germany? Did not these advancements have a lesser lasting effect upon our world, despite the present-day existence of the multiple-wheel landing gear on such aircraft as the Lockheed C-5A?

Even if one is not disposed to accept this reviewer’s proposal for the two additional criteria, there are still many other significant aircraft which satisfy the original three criteria established by the authors but not presented in their work.

An excellent example is the XCO-5, an aircraft of little renown but of tremendous technological importance to the world. Originally designed and built by the Engineering Division of the U.S. Army Aviation Section at McCook Field, Dayton, Ohio, in 1923, the XCO-5 was extensively modified almost immediately for high-altitude flight to test the turbosupercharger of Dr. Sanford A. Moss then under early development by General Electric. New high-lift wings employing the Joukowsky StAe-27A airfoil were designed and built, and the fuselage was remodeled considerably to ward off the effects of the frigid temperatures to which the plane was to be subjected.

In this craft Lieutenant John A. Macready made flight after flight into the unknown upper air, some even into the general region of 40,000 feet. The knowledge which this one man acquired with this one airplane, and which he brought back to earth for analysis, made possible the continuing development of the turbosupercharger, which ultimately was so widely used during World War II. How different might the history of the air war over Germany and Japan have been if the turbo had not been available for the B-17, B-24, B 29, P-38, and P-47! Without the knowledge gained from Macready’s XCO-5 flights of the 1920s, it is quite possible General Electric would not have had the turbo ready for mass production at the time it was needed so desperately.

Bicycle landing gears, though not entirely a post-World War II idea, were certainly not engineered for heavy metal aircraft of high wing loadings and high takeoff and landing speeds until the Martin XB-26H proved the practicality of such an arrangement. This aircraft, modified from a standard TB-26G, was equipped with tandem main wheels and small outrigger gears for ground stability and maneuverability. Named the “Middle River Stump Jumper” for Martin’s plant in Maryland, the XB-26H was tested extensively in 1946 to prove the technical feasibility of the bicycle gear which was later used extensively on hundreds of aircraft, including the USAF B-47, B-52, and U-2, the British Harrier, and the Soviet Bounder.

Another World War II aircraft to which the authors failed to credit sufficient significance was the Sikorsky R-4. It was not only the world’s first production helicopter but the first to be used in a mercy role when on 3 January 1944 it delivered two cases of blood plasma to Sandy Hook, New Jersey, for the injured survivors of a destroyer explosion. This single mercy flight presaged a future for the helicopter which few, including the most visionary, would have believed possible at that time.

The R-4 was also the first helicopter to be used for rescue and evacuation in a combat theater. In January 1944 it evacuated a wounded enlisted man from Air Warning Station No. F-76, located at Ponyo in the Naga Hills of Burma.

The initial operational use of the R-4 in Burma engendered that classic statement by the famed Colonel Phil Cochran, in a letter to a friend in the States, “Today the ‘egg-beater’ went into action and the damn thing acted like it had good sense.” To appreciate this statement fully, one must realize that a YR-4 had been rushed by air from the States for rescue work in Burma, and once it had been assembled at Myitkyina North Strip and had taken off on its initial test hop, it presented such a conglomeration of whirling blades and awkward mannerisms that the old-time fixed-wing pilots gazed in utter disbelief. Small wonder they were so greatly amazed when it got into the air and then back down to the ground in one piece, as they had been told it was supposed to do.

I cannot help questioning the rationale used to select several other aircraft included in Milestones of the Air. For examples, with reference to the Mitsubishi Karigane the authors state that its 1937 flight from Tokyo to London and return “marked the emergence of Japanese aviation as a momentous force. . . .” (p. 95) This statement is ambiguous, for by 1937 the world had already become cognizant that Japanese military aviation had progressed far beyond the point of being a mere token force. Were the Karigane actually so historically significant, it would be much better remembered by competent aviation historians, whereas in fact it is greatly overshadowed by such aircraft as the de Havilland Comet flown by Black and Scott from London to Melbourne or the Fokker T-2 which made the first nonstop flight across the United States. Could it be that the authors are giving more weight to “hindsight of the present” than to “foresight of the past”?

It has not been my intention to be overly critical of the authors’ selections of aircraft which were included in Milestones of the Air, nor do I wish to infer that my own suggested selections are sacrosanct. There is no question but that many readers will be able to designate aircraft of their own choosing which they could substantiate as being of greater significance than some which the authors selected or those which I have proposed. That is the risk which any historian, aviation or otherwise, must face whenever he prepares for public consumption a work that so greatly depends upon his personal opinions, interpretations, and evaluations. Suffice it to say that the au­thors have synthesized into one book a tremendous amount of factual data, and in general their selections are excellent.

It is my primary purpose to bring to the attention of those readers with minimal background in aviation history that they should be wary of accepting as gospel all the aircraft in Milestones of the Air. The book may be considered as a very accurate, authoritative source for data on 100 historic aircraft, but not necessarily the 100 most historic aircraft.

Despite the general excellence of Milestones of the Air, it contains some errors and omissions that should be noted for those who may eventually use it for research purposes. On page 52 there is the statement that the Dayton-Wright R. B. Racer was powered by a Hall-Scott Liberty Six 6-cylinder engine. This is incorrect, for although the R. B. Racer was powered by a Hall-Scott L. 6, the “L” was strictly a letter designation selected by the manufacturer and not an abbreviation for the famous Liberty. It is true that the L. 6 used standard Liberty cylinders and valve gear, but beyond that it was a different power plant. There was a 6-cylinder Liberty, but it was an experimental model only, made by Packard and not Hall-Scott.

On page 60 the authors introduce the Fokker FVII-3m as the most famous of “the Fokker commercial monoplanes of the 1920s and 1930s. . .  Though the material presented is accurate, I believe that the full significance of the wooden-wing Fokker transport was ignored. While this significance was of a negative value similar to that of the Hindenburg, the Fokker most certainly had a deep and lasting impact upon the development of commercial aviation, particularly in the United States. On 31 March 1931, Fokker FX-A, NC-999E, of Transcontinental and Western Airlines, crashed to earth near Bazaar, Kansas, carrying its two-man crew and six passengers to their death. The accident received enormous publicity, for one of the passengers was the famous Knute Rockne, Notre Dame football coach and a leading sports celebrity. When it was learned that the Fokker had lost the outer section of its left wing while in flight, the public’s reaction was so fierce that, rightly or wrongly, the airlines were forced to remove their wooden-wing Fokkers from service in order to remain in business. Potential passengers refused to accept the results of an investigation which found that the wings of Fokkers still in service were safe. Instead they placed their faith in the metal-wing Ford Trimotor. The wooden-wing airliner was doomed by this one isolated accident of a Fokker FX-A.

In discussing the Supermarine S.4, the authors point out that on 13 September 1925 Captain Henri Biard set a world’s speed record of 226.6 mph in the plane. After its engine was tuned and a more efficient propeller was installed (suggesting an even higher speed potential), the S.4 had an accident and was unable to participate in the 1925 Schneider Trophy race, which was won by Lieutenant Jimmy Doolittle in a “Curtiss Army biplane with a speed of 232.57 mph. . . .” (p. 58) However, King and Taylor fail to mention that the day following the Schneider race, Doolittle flew this same biplane, the R3C-2, to a new world’s speed record of 245.7 mph.

There is a glaring historical error in the statement regarding “massive employment” of the B-17 in operations over Japan. (p. 88) Although the B-17 was used extensively in the southwest Pacific during the first year the United States was engaged in World War II, it was withdrawn in favor of the B-24, which had greater range for the long overwater missions that were required. The “massive employment” over Japan must be credited to the B-29.

In their presentation on the Fairchild Packet the authors failed to distinguish between the C-82 Packet and the C-119 Flying Boxcar, the latter name not even being mentioned. (p. 110) They also failed to point out that these two aircraft were more different than similar, and their statement that the C-119 was “a new and improved version of the C-82” is an oversimplification. The one and only C-119 was originally considered an improved version of the C-82, even the Air Force failing to realize the significant differences between the two aircraft. When Fairchild proposed conducting wind-tunnel tests on the C-119, the Air Force took the position that such tests were unnecessary—the planes were so similar that data accumulated in C-82 wind-tunnel tests could be applied to the C-119 program. However, when the C-119A was test-flown, the Air Force learned how wrong it had been, for the aircraft immediately evidenced serious stability, control, and structural difficulties that had not been encountered with the C-82. Extensive changes were made to the C-119A design to correct the deficiencies, but when the C-119B began coming off the production line both Fairchild and the Air Force realized quite forcefully that the difficulties had not been corrected, particularly with regard to directional and longitudinal stability. Various other measures were taken, such as adding and removing dorsal and ventral fins, but a constantly increasing accident rate supported the contention that the C-119 had totally different characteristics from the C-82.

In 1951-52 Fairchild went to the extreme of developing another design, the C-119H, to correct the problems of the production C-119. Because of cost and performance factors, however, the Air Force rejected the C-119H proposal. Eventually, in-service C-119s became quite satisfactory through such measures as rewriting the pilot’s handbook for single-engine speeds and gross takeoff weights. Nevertheless, the C-119 had quite a gestation period, the likes of which the C-82 never encountered.

The F-102 is referred to as both “Delta Dart” and “Delta Dagger.” (p. 117) The F-102 is the Delta Dagger; the F-106 is the Delta Dart.

The general layout of the book is quite pleasing, but the publisher omitted the page number on too many pages. The Wright Flyer is listed in the table of contents as being on page 8, yet the first numbered page is 19. Certainly numbers should have been placed at least on all those pages that are listed under Contents. Furthermore, the table of contents would be more useful if alphabetized.

In some instances the authors stated where certain historic aircraft are preserved for posterity and can be seen. However, they overlooked various other aircraft that are also on public exhibit. For example, the U.S. Air Force Museum at Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio, has been entrusted with numerous historic aircraft, including the XF-92A, the X-5, a B-58A, both X-15s (one of which is on loan to the Smithsonian Institution), and the only MiG- 15 believed to be on display outside the Iron Curtain. The NC-4 is at the Smithsonian; the Dayton-Wright R. B. Racer is at the Ford Museum near Dearborn, Michigan; and numerous other institutions around the world have such aircraft as the Me 163 and Me 262, the Sopwith 1½ Strutter, the Avro 504, the Mitsubishi Zero, and even a Junkers J1 and Ju 57.

To recapitulate, Messrs. King and Taylor have produced an interesting and useful book, well worth its cost. It should be of particular value to the student of aviation history who does not have ready access to all the issues of Jane’s All the World’s Aircraft since the early 1900s or other reputable reference works, for it is a reliable source for obtaining or verifying basic historical and technical data on the 100 aircraft presented. Again I caution against using it as the final authority for accepting or defending those aircraft selected as the 100 most significant ones in aviation history. Someone well versed in the historical importance and significance of the XB-70 Valkyrie could present quite a convincing argument for its inclusion in the top 100 aircraft instead of or alongside the British-French Concorde.

Springfield, Ohio

Royal D. Frey, Lieutenant Colonel, USAFR (Ret), (M.S., Ohio State University), is Chief, Research Division, Air Force Museum. A pilot and prisoner of war in Europe during World War II, he then became historian, Hq AMC. In 1951 he was recalled to active duty as an Air Defense Command pilot. He was Command Staff Editor, Hq AMC, for five years before accepting his present position. Mr. Frey is author of several Air Force histories and a contributor to flight periodicals.