Good point about Aristotle: that was an area where a particular view was definitely seen as authoritative and that was a problem. Not sure if whether a lack of philsophy would have prevented another definitive solution being present, mind: the problem there was largely about a backwards-looking approach to truth, that saw the past as a Golden Age.
I don't have answers to these myself: I don't pretend to any more certainty than you. It partially depends on what you consider philosophy. I think Malthus is a good example of what I'd consider a (wrong) philosophical idea which assisted a great scientific advance. I thought that late nineteenth/early twentieth century physicists were often influenced by people like Kant, but I may be wrong, it's been awhile since I've read anything in these areas.
Come to that, I sometimes think that people are lumped into 'science' by their success or their association with more solid empirical science. To take your example of Copernicus, I don't think he really did much in the way of scientific experimentation etc: the main appeal of his theory was its mathematical/aesthetic elegance. It was Galileo who got into testing things.
I've often wished for a list of cases where philosophy has proven useful, or has at least anticipated science in drawing correct conclusions. Here's one for the list:
The June 18 2010 Science has two very similar articles on how rat brains represent space. Both conclude that the brain already represents space as a grid before rat pups take their first steps into the world. Both make the point that this validates Kant's claim that space is an innate concept prior to experience.
(The next task is to make a corresponding list of cases where philosophers made incorrect conclusions; and estimate whether the number of correct conclusions is greater than chance.)