If a plane was unsuccessful and stayed rare, it is not "recognizable", because few have seen it. If it was successful, it made a contribution - but if it inspired close copies then it is not "recognizable" either.
Boeing 747 is a plane which is obviously both recognizable and has made a contribution. No one copied the hump - itself copied from Carvair, but that is a propeller plane.
Now, looking at other planes with appreciable contribution, either themselves or via copies:
Boeing 707 - copied by DC-8 and Convair 880/990. Is DC-8 immediately recognizable?
Boeing 737 - copied by A320 and others, as pointed out.
Boeing 727 - a copy of Hawker-Siddeley Trident. As is Tu-154.
Douglas DC-9/MD-80/-90/B717/ARJ21 - copies of BAC 1-11. As are Fokker 28/100/70, and Tu-134, and CRJ.
Airbus 300/310 - copied by Boeing 767
DC-10/MD-11 - should be fairly "recognizable". No copies, and Tristar is different enough.
Concorde - little contribution, with just 14 frames in service. And how readily is it distinguished from Tu-144? Yes, stand different on ground, Concorde´s smooth ogive wing, Tu-144´s canards... but considering how few airports see Concorde regularly, how many people would immediately recognize Tu-144 as something different from Concorde?