Talk:Successful aircraft types

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

AVIATION This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Aviation Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

I took F-104 Starfighter off the list. I hope this isn't controversial. While quite a few were built, it's still far fewer than most of the numbers mentioned here, plus its suitability as a fighter is highly questionable, and it has a poor safety record. I also added B-52, which, while not built in huge numbers, has proved such an exceptionally successful design that it may end up being the longest serving aircraft ever, with an almost 100 year projected service life. Graham 11:58, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It's the sort of page that could easily wind up as an edit war, Graham. That's why I was quite specific about taking the opinion out of it and simply looking at he ones that were produced in really large numbers, back when I first wrote that header paragraph.

Your changes. Hmmm .... I'd be the first to agree that the Starfighter wasn't particularly successful. Indeed, it had a terrible safety record, and was quickly taken out of service by all those countries that could afford to buy something better. But when you compare it with other military aircraft of the era, it was produced in very large numbers. If my memory serves, only the Phantom and the Shyhawk were made in anything like that volume, but still only about half. Still, a marginal one. (Oh, and doubtless some of the Soviet types. Do we have production figures for the MiG 15 and MiG 21 anywhere handy? I probably have them around here somewhere.)
The Il-2 was certainly not a fighter. But then, it wasn't really a bomber either, not in the orthodox sense. But better under bomber, I think.
And the B-52. Hmmm.... Certainly astonishingly long-lived. Worth retaining as the exception, I guess. Tannin 12:20, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
The thing is, is success simply equated with large numbers, or even relatively large ones? I don't think so. If a plane kills a disproportionate number of its pilots, then I don't think it can be counted as a success - there must be something inherently wrong with its design. Also, as the B-52 indicates, success can be defined in an alternative manner. Clearly the B-52 is a very successful design simply because if it weren't, something better would have had to be designed to replace it. That hasn't happened, and doesn't appear likely to. Having said that, I concur with pretty much every other inclusion on the list, and I also can't really think of any counter-examples (where a large number of a really bad design was produced). Personally I feel that the DH-88 Comet Racer is an exceptionally good and successful design, but only a handful were built! Graham 02:44, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

"F-16: about 2,900 still in production" - this looks liek a typo of some kind, surely there cannot be 2,900 in production. Does it mean in use? Graham 06:26, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"King Charles walked and talked half an hour after his head was cut off." It looks like a case of the infamous missing comma to me. Something like "about 2,900, still in production" would make sense. Tannin 07:03, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)