# Revolutionary aircraft of World war 2?



## Aozora (May 17, 2014)

From the Hellcat vs Zero thread: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/hellcat-vs-zero-40782.html



gjs238 said:


> Like "the best," there are so many ways to define "revolutionary."
> One way may be to equate revolutionary with "game changer."



According to the dictionary the only way to define "revolutionary" when related to aircraft design is: _adj._ *1* Involving or causing dramatic change. (Concise Oxford English Dictionary). Looked in several other dictionaries and definitions are similar. 

1) Unarmed PR Spitfires: redefined PR aircraft.

2) Me 262: 

3) Mosquito as a fast unarmed bomber/PR. Redefined fast bomber with no defensive armament. Tied with Ju 88 as versatile, multi-role aircraft. Was the all-wood construction technique revolutionary? The de H Hornet was arguably more revolutionary because it pioneered the technique of bonding dissimilar materials, rather than using rivets or screws or bolts.

3 =) Arado 234: first unarmed jet bomber PR aircraft.


----------



## nuuumannn (May 18, 2014)

Aozora, take a look at moy post in the other thread. I wouldn't consider the Me 262 as revolutionary; it introduced a revolution in powerplant design, but it in itself was not because it was in no real position to bring about the change that gas turbines could and eventually would offer for two reasons. One, the engine technology itself wasn't advanced enough and neither was the airframe to take advantage of what gas turbines could potentially offer and it was rushed into service prematurely, thus adding to this and two, the Allies got the better of the Me 262 relatively quickly using contemporary technology. Had the war continued, P-80s and Meteors would have been introduced, which also suffered the same deficiencies, being of that generation. Perhaps the first generation of fighters to take advantage of what the gas turbine could really offer in terms of aerodynamic advance was tentatively the F-86, MiG-15 and Hawker Hunter generation and from there, the likes of the MiG-19 and F-100. The '262 was a contemporary design mated to a revolutionary powerplant, as was the Meat box and P-80 and were mere evolution on what currently existed.

As for the Mossie, like I said in the other thread, it was tangential to existing philosophies, rather than truly new, since the idea was out there before and during the Great War actually put into practise. It offered nothing new in technology - it was just very well designed. The techniques in its design and construction were not new at all, nor was those used in the Hornet, but were the epitome of old technologies applied in an exceptional and rather clever way. Its versatility as a fighting machine certainly brought about a considerable change post war in approach that lasts, as I said in the other thread, to this day in bomber/attack aircraft concepts, but was not truly new.

Arado 234 I'll give you, but only tentatively for the same reasons as the Me 262. The Canberra could be argued as the first truly revolutionary jet bomber over previous bombers - also embodying the virtues of the Mosquito philosophy and taking better advantage of the new technology beyond what the Arado could. The Arado was new engines, old airframe, but it was unstoppable and even then this was only temporary by nature of progress, however. 

PR Spit? hmm, again, a tangent to an existing philosophy and the idea of high speed unarmed recon machines had been applied by the Germans (in practise, I might add) before the British - and the Germans also used Fw 190s and Bf 109s in the same role. In terms of impact on the war, certainly game changing, but it was the use of the information these aircraft produced and the structure and flexibility of the entire British/Allied PR machine - Medmenham, excellent PIs etc that made the RAF PR system so damned good, rather than just the Spitfire.

Any more?


----------



## GrauGeist (May 18, 2014)

Just an observation here, but it could be said that the Me262 was revolutionary in the fact that the speed it offered changed the face of aerial warfare. It wasn't the first jet aircraft to take flight and it wasn't the first armed jet aircraft to take flight, but it was a sum of the whole, that made it revolutionary. Tactics both in deploying it and in countering it had to be re-written. The lineage of all combat jets that entered a combat zone from that point onwards will point directly back to it.

That would certainly qualify it as revolutionary.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Aozora (May 18, 2014)

nuuumannn said:


> Aozora, take a look at moy post in the other thread. I wouldn't consider the Me 262 as revolutionary; it introduced a revolution in powerplant design, but it in itself was not because it was in no real position to bring about the change that gas turbines could and eventually would offer for two reasons. One, the engine technology itself wasn't advanced enough and neither was the airframe to take advantage of what gas turbines could potentially offer and it was rushed into service prematurely, thus adding to this and two, the Allies got the better of the Me 262 relatively quickly using contemporary technology. Had the war continued, P-80s and Meteors would have been introduced, which also suffered the same deficiencies, being of that generation. Perhaps the first generation of fighters to take advantage of what the gas turbine could really offer in terms of aerodynamic advance was tentatively the F-86, MiG-15 and Hawker Hunter generation and from there, the likes of the MiG-19 and F-100. The '262 was a contemporary design mated to a revolutionary powerplant, as was the Meat box and P-80 and were mere evolution on what currently existed.



The 262 used new engine technology and was the first to adopt swept, slatted wings - albeit this was forced upon the designers - plus modular construction techniques, all allied to a heavy armament, and (later) tricycle undercarriage. The events surrounding its introduction into service had nothing to do with the design -it was the first operational jet fighter and foreshadowed every jet fighter that came after it. That is the definition of revolutionary. 



nuuumannn said:


> As for the Mossie, like I said in the other thread, it was tangential to existing philosophies, rather than truly new, since the idea was out there before and during the Great War actually put into practise.



The only reason unarmed recce aircraft were used at the start of WW1 was because the existing tractor engines did not allow aircraft to carry fixed armament; all unarmed recce aircraft were rapidly rendered obsolete with Fokker's interrupter/synchronised armament and pusher fighters such as the DH 2. Otherwise, there was no such thing as an unarmed fast bomber capable of outpacing almost all existing fighters throughout the war. So what if the Mosquito was tangential to existing philosophies, fact is it worked, helped overturn those philosophies (or do you mean doctrines?) and foreshadowed every unarmed bomber built between 1941 to the present day. Revolutionary



nuuumannn said:


> The techniques in its design and construction were not new at all,



I didn't say it was, which is why I added a question mark...



nuuumannn said:


> nor was those used in the Hornet, but were the epitome of old technologies applied in an exceptional and rather clever way.



Then please tell me another WW2 aircraft that used a high strength epoxy to bond two completely dissimilar materials? "the epitome of old technologies applied in an exceptional and rather clever way." What better way to describe revolutionary?



nuuumannn said:


> Arado 234 I'll give you, but only tentatively for the same reasons as the Me 262. The Canberra could be argued as the first truly revolutionary jet bomber over previous bombers - also embodying the virtues of the Mosquito philosophy and taking better advantage of the new technology beyond what the Arado could. The Arado was new engines, old airframe, but it was unstoppable and even then this was only temporary by nature of progress, however.



Discounting the Mosquito, while allowing that the Ar 234 was revolutionary is somewhat contradictory. The Canberra was still an old airframe - including the use of a conventional bomb-aimer's position - mated to new engines. It was a permutation of concepts pioneered by the Mossie and Ar 234.


----------



## The Basket (May 18, 2014)

Revolutionary Aircraft.

Sikorsky R-4
Me 163
Boeing B29

These offered a capability not seen before.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 18, 2014)

The Basket said:


> Revolutionary Aircraft.
> 
> Sikorsky R-4
> Me 163
> ...



I am not sure if the R-4 could be considered revolutionary. It was the first helicopter produced on a large scale, but the concept had already been around for a while.

Same with the B-29. While I consider it the best bomber produced during WW2, and even though it had many advanced features it still was just a 4 engined piston heavy bomber which too was going the way of the Dodo bird.


----------



## m37b1 (May 18, 2014)

V-2


----------



## The Basket (May 18, 2014)

m37b1 said:


> V-2



V-2 and V-1.

R-4 was the first helicopter which worked. Not some novelty.

B-29 was the first nuclear bomber. It introduced warfare beyond imagination and was the biggest spending project in US during WW2. it was far more than a fancier B-17.


----------



## davebender (May 18, 2014)

If so then 1903 Wright Flyer deserves the credit. Or perhaps the multitude of wooden gliders which proceeded the Wright Flyer.


----------



## GrauGeist (May 18, 2014)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> The Basket said:
> 
> 
> > Revolutionary Aircraft.
> ...


Herr Adler's correct, the R-4 may have been produced in large numbers, but it wasn't the first in production and it wasn't the first used operationally in a forward area.



The Basket said:


> V-2 and V-1.
> *
> R-4 was the first helicopter which worked. Not some novelty.*
> 
> B-29 was the first nuclear bomber. It introduced warfare beyond imagination and was the biggest spending project in US during WW2. it was far more than a fancier B-17.


The German helicopter program was far from producing novelties...

The Focke-Achgelis Fa223, while produced in small quantities proved it's worth outside of it's original design to drop bombs. It was used as a heavy lift/cargo transport and ended up setting records for distance 1,041 miles (1,675km) and for being the first helicopter to cross the English Channel.

The Flettner Fl282 was produced in small numbers, intended to be a maritime liaison aircraft, ended up being used on the battlefield as an artillery spotter and messenger.

One of the main reasons why the Germans did not produce more of their helicopters, was that the factories kept getting bombed and not being a priority aircraft, did not see the resources to quickly re-establish production like the fighter/bomber facilities did.

Those listed above, were true helicopters, there were several types of Auto-Gyros in service, like the Japanese Kayaba Ka-1/2 that served throughout the war...mostly in anti-submarine duties.


----------



## vikingBerserker (May 18, 2014)

I will go with Guided Missiles, drones, V2.

I will through out the Bachem 349 Natter as the first vertically launched fighter.


----------



## GrauGeist (May 18, 2014)

vikingBerserker said:


> I will go with Guided Missiles, drones, V2.
> 
> I will through out the Bachem 349 Natter as the first vertically launched fighter.


They had "drones" in WWI


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 18, 2014)

The Basket said:


> V-2 and V-1.
> 
> R-4 was the first helicopter which worked. Not some novelty.
> 
> B-29 was the first nuclear bomber. It introduced warfare beyond imagination and was the biggest spending project in US during WW2. it was far more than a fancier B-17.



No the R-4 was not the first which worked. Both the Americans and Germans had working helicopters before the R-4. It was just the first to be produced in large numbers.

As for the B-29, just because it cost a lot of money does not make it revolutionary. The aircraft itself was still a piston engined heavy bomber.


----------



## nuuumannn (May 18, 2014)

V2 most certainly revolutionary, but not the V1. Fi 103 could have been built by any competent aircraft manufacturing nation, besides, like what's been pointed out here, guided missiles had been built by both sides prior to WW2, although in saying that, the guided missile was a revolutionary concept, just not the Fi 103. Its application was innovatory, but not a revolution in sicence or technology; it was very simple in design and construction. The A 4 rocket however, was a revolution; it did change the face of warfare.

Aozora and Dave, the reason why I don't consider the 262 revolutionary is because it in itself wasn't. Its gas turbine engines were and as far as the swept wings are concerned, they were also not new and placed due to cg concerns, not to take advantage of its powerplant. As for re-writing the rule book, the RAF had the Meteor in squadron service before the Me 262 and as I stated earlier, the 262 was and could be defeated by conventional means, the Allies did not employ jets to defeat the threat. It had potential, but it was very much a contemporary design - the Meteor and the P-80 were its equal technology wise. The revolution was the gas turbine engine, not the 262 airframe it was fitted to. Its contribution was the potential it offered for the future, potential that it was not entirely capable of carrying out owing to its faults. You could argue that jet fighters as a whole - not specifically the 262, it wasn't the first jet fighter, was a revolutionary concept, but again, it could be argued that they were as much an evolution since piston engines were reaching their zenith in terms of what they could produce - hmmm this is very contradictory... See, not so easy to quantify eh.

Mossie, sorry, not revolutionary. Certainly innovative use of existing technology and theories put into practise in a very well designed package, but not a revolution in design, nor technology. In terms of application, like I said, the idea had been around for awhile - Volkert set the ball rolling in Britain at least with his paper on high speed unarmed bombers in the mid 1930s and many within the Air Staff actually liked the idea. The Mossie proved a theory could work and that the high speed unarmed bomber's time had come, but it was hardly a revolutionary concept. Existing ideas of bombing did not die off with the application of the high speed unarmed bomber idea. The big bomber with defensive weapons had a few miles left in it at the time the Mossie entered RAF Bomber Command.

As for the Hornet, the use of bonded structure was innovative, but not revolutionary; it didn't in itself change the nature of aircraft manufacture. Composites and bonded structures, although not dissimilar materials as in the Hornet, had been in use before; ever heard of the Aerolite Spitfire? What about the DH.88 and Albatross? Wooden structures have been referred to as nature's composite. One structural innovation that has changed the face of aircraft manufacture is milled structural skin panels, these have had a far greater impact on aircraft design than the Hornet's bonded structure. Almost every modern aircraft since the early to mid 1960s have used milled structural panels.

The point behind me suggesting the Canberra was that it was able to take better advantage of the engines's advances and therefore its application was more akin to a revolution in what it offered to bombing, whereas the Ar 234 could not; it did not have the same flexibility of design as the Canberra. Old airframe? Perhaps in 2006, when the RAF retired them, but not in 1949 when it first flew. Yes, it had a visual bomb aimer's position, but that was a requirement of the design, as did all the V bombers, but there was also a blind bomber variant, the B.5, although it was not put into production, it was superceded by the BI.8 interdictor.

As for the B-29, I can't agree that it was entirely a revolution, although as a nuclear bomber it was and what if offered the Russian aircraft industry, but that is because the Russians were far behind the USA, Britain and Germany. As an aircraft, it was a piston engined bomber and the ultimate expression of that (discounting the B-36, but you could argue that it was a B-29 on steroids and offered nothing new other than load carrying capability and distance). Had the B-29 appeared with gas turbines and swept back wings and emp - i.e, the B-47, then it would have been truly revolutionary in WW2!

Here are things considered to be revolutionary as a whole, the internal combustion engine, the nautical screw, the rapid fire machine gun, gas turbine engines, nuclear weapons, aircraft carriers, practical vertical take off and landing aircraft, i.e. rotor craft and the Harrier, ballistic missiles and rocket technology, aircraft as a whole, economy class (some of you are thinking "Say wha..?" Think about it, before economy class was invented, the only people who could fly as pax were the very wealthy. Economy class changed that and with its application, pax numbers around the world escalated by the thousands. It was only with the advent of large airliners that it truly became a viable concept. Changed the world, you know), steam engines, balloons, aerial photography etc...


----------



## Njaco (May 18, 2014)

I would never call the V-1, V-2 or Fi 103 as revolutionary "aircraft".... more like revolutionary weapons.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 18, 2014)

Njaco said:


> I would never call the V-1, V-2 or Fi 103 as revolutionary "aircraft".... more like revolutionary weapons.



Same with the Nuke. It was a revolutionary weapon, but the plane that dropped it was not a revolutionary design. It had many innovative features though.

That is why I can't see it as a revolutionary plane.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (May 18, 2014)

Yep, agree entirely, although its impact on the Russian aviation industry was revolutionary since the Russians had nothing like it and had to learn a whole new set of skills and manufacturing techniques that they did not possess, but were common abroad.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 19, 2014)

nuuumannn said:


> Yep, agree entirely, although its impact on the Russian aviation industry was revolutionary since the Russians had nothing like it and had to learn a whole new set of skills and manufacturing techniques that they did not possess, but were common abroad.



That I can agree with.


----------



## The Basket (May 19, 2014)

The Natter truly revolutionary but it wasnt operational and didnt work as advertised. 

And to my knowledge hasnt been copied.

B29 was revolutioary in what it brought.
It maybe another piston prop bomber like He-111 but thats selling it very short.

Todays helicopters are not based on German designs pre-war.


----------



## parsifal (May 19, 2014)

Are we looking at the whole history of flight, or just WWII

If we are looking at the whole history, then a few standouts ought to be mentioned

1903 Orville flyer (obvious)
Fokker Eindekker fighters (first aircraft with workable interruptor gear) 
Packard-Le Père LUSAC-11 (first aircraft to break 37000 feet and first aircraft with workable cabin pressurization 
??????? (first aircraft to carry cannon armament)
??????? (first aircraft with operational guided missile armement) 
??????? (first carrier based aircraft able to outperform land based equivaenet)
Hawker Harrier and Sea Harrier ( first aircraft with workable VTOL capability and supersonic


----------



## The Basket (May 19, 2014)

Most revolutionary aircraft go no place.
Me 163
Natter 
Concorde
Even the Harrier. Look at the Harrier! Fantastic yet who copied it! Harrier should Bet big time and every fighter should be VTOL. But no. And now the F-35 has a much worse design.


----------



## michaelmaltby (May 19, 2014)

Perhaps too hum drum a suggestion ... but I'd argue that the Bell P-39 Aerocobra was 'revolutionary'. Larry Bell and his designer designed the aircraft around the 37 mm Olds canon ... making the aircraft a weapon system .. as opposed to a platform to which guns were added. To accomplish the goal, features such as the mid-engine mount were adopted ...

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 19, 2014)

The Basket said:


> Todays helicopters are not based on German designs pre-war.



No one said that. Still does not change the fact that even Sikorsky had other "true" helicopter designs that worked. The R-4 was not revolutionary, it was just the first one produced on large scale.


----------



## pbehn (May 19, 2014)

The Glostor Whittle and whichever jet first flew in Germany, not because it was any good but straight away (almost) faster than the fastest RAF fighter of the day, blew "last orders" on the piston engine.

Spitfire and Hurricane in the BoB, not because they were better but because of the command and control behind them, all air defence and most attack has some similar system

V2 set the tone for years of post war development leading to men on the moon satellite coms and M.A.D.

Mosquito ......first bomber to be pretty seriously small light laminated structures two man crew a true MRCA maybe not a revolutionary design or even a new principle but changed a lot of minds.


B29 the raid on Hiroshima and Nagasaki revolutionized EVERYONES thoughts about war. True other planes could have dropped the bomb but the B29 did.


----------



## oldcrowcv63 (May 19, 2014)

Leduc 0.10 First Ramjet powered aircraft leading to the The french Nord Griffon:

Leduc 0.10 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nord 1500 Griffon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There may have been earlier ramjst powered a/c but this is the earliest I could find in a brief search.


----------



## timmy (May 19, 2014)

The P-51 would have to be mentioned

It was an aerodynamic master piece. Not just the Laminar flow wings, but also excellent Meredith effect radiator ducts and carburetor duct 
Add Excellent construction quality, flush sheet metal, no paint and Fully Flush covering wheel wells and you start to understand what made it so fast

Really it only had a standard 2 stage 1700hp Merlin engine giving it speeds up to 450mph. A Spitfire/FW 190 would need seriously boosted engines producing over 2000hp to reach that speed

But the game changer was those same aerodynamic qualities was giving the aircraft serious combat range as well

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (May 19, 2014)

The Basket said:


> The Natter truly revolutionary but it wasnt operational and didnt work as advertised.
> 
> And to my knowledge hasnt been copied.



Apart from every rocket powered vertical take off craft since 

Cheers

Steve


----------



## GrauGeist (May 19, 2014)

While the Ba349 might not have been copied by the Japanese, they certainly used the same concept with their Yokosuka MXY7


----------



## stona (May 19, 2014)

timmy said:


> The P-51 would have to be mentioned
> 
> It was an aerodynamic master piece. Not just the Laminar flow wings, but also excellent Meredith effect radiator ducts and carburetor duct
> Add Excellent construction quality, flush sheet metal, no paint and Fully Flush covering wheel wells and you start to understand what made it so fast
> ...



It wasn't revolutionary. It wasn't the first to exploit the Meredith effect. It didn't have laminar flow wings (though the flow was laminar in ideal conditions over a larger percentage of the wing than other contemporary aircraft). There was nothing revolutionary about the construction techniques used. You might want to check your performance figures.

The P-51 was one of the great aeroplanes, it would be in almost anyone's top three single engine (piston) fighters of all time, but it was in no way revolutionary.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## tomo pauk (May 19, 2014)

timmy said:


> The P-51 would have to be mentioned
> 
> It was an aerodynamic master piece. Not just the Laminar flow wings, but also excellent Meredith effect radiator ducts and carburetor duct
> Add Excellent construction quality, flush sheet metal, no paint and Fully Flush covering wheel wells and you start to understand what made it so fast
> ...



Agreed pretty much. The impressive combat radius was mostly a consequence of huge (for the modest size and engine power) internal fuel load, though.


----------



## GrauGeist (May 19, 2014)

The P-51 wasn't revolutionary, it was _innovative_.

It didn't revolutionize piston powered fighter aircraft, but it's innovations influenced later generations of aircraft design. Such innovations as the standoff intake for the radiator, that reduced turbulance which can be seen in modern fighter jets.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (May 19, 2014)

Yep, I agree with Dave. I think some of us are getting revolutionary mixed up with game changers or innovative designs - there is a _big_ difference. A revolution brings about a profound and far reaching change in the way something is done, like nuclear weapons and their impact on the world post war and the application of gas turbines in aircraft - that's revolutionary technology. The Me 163 did not bring about a revolution in technology or in anything in fact, except perhaps that the Germans had found a novel and quite nasty way of killing their own pilots. Its influence was minimal, despite the British flirting with rocket powered interceptors that never entered service and the use of HTP in almost all their rocket motors. It's difficult to name particular aircraft types as being revolutionary since so few actually were. The Me 262 is cited as being one, but wasn't, although it was an influential part of a revolution that was taking place in aircraft powerplants; it was not the cause of it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (May 19, 2014)

Sure, like I mentioned before, the Me262 in itself wasn't revolutionary but it's concept and application was.

Technically speaking, the He178 was the revolutionary jet aircraft because it not only was the first successful and practical application of a jet engine to an airframe, it also had the engine mounted in such a way that future jet aircraft followed the example in their designs. Therefore, it set the stage for for the next generation of aircraft evolution. That is revolutionary.

The Me262 used a wide variety of innovations that set it at the head of the line in first generation Jet aircraft, such as it's innovative fuselage design along with it's adapted wing design to allow for the unique CoG problem. While it was not the first armed jet aircraft (He280 has that notoriety) it was the first armed jet aircraft used in combat (sorry Gloster fans, but the '262 beat it by several weeks for that award) and it became a study in high speed combat that changed the school of thought in regards to aerial warfare.

So the Me262 by itself was not revolutionary.


----------



## nuuumannn (May 19, 2014)

> Technically speaking, the He 178 was the revolutionary jet aircraft because it not only was the first successful and practical application of a jet engine to an airframe, it also had the engine mounted in such a way that future jet aircraft followed the example in their designs. Therefore, it set the stage for for the next generation of aircraft evolution. That is revolutionary.



yep, you got it.



> it was the first armed jet aircraft used in combat (sorry Gloster fans, but the '262 beat it by several weeks for that award)



Yep, also, but the Meat Box was the first jet fighter to enter squadron service.


----------



## stona (May 19, 2014)

I bet that an Me 262 whistling past at over 500mph would have seemed pretty revolutionary to the average B-17 crew. Just the absence of propellers would have astonished most 

The P-51, for example, was just another piston engine fighter. As mentioned above, it did incorporate some innovative features but then so did many aircraft.

The V-1 was definitely an aircraft, just as any modern UAV is. Revolutionary? Maybe not. The concept of using unmanned aircraft to deliver death and destruction to an enemy was neither new nor revolutionary in the 1940s.

The V-2 is the direct ancestor of all modern ICBMs and was truly revolutionary. It was the first missile to make sub orbital flights (just) as a matter of course. Without it there would have been no man on the moon in 1969. The problem is it wasn't really an aircraft by any definition I know.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## GrauGeist (May 19, 2014)

nuuumannn said:


> Yep, also, but the Meat Box was *the first jet fighter to enter squadron service*.


That's where things get sticky...

The Germans used active testing for the Me262 and "Erprobungskommando 262" was formed (19 April 44) for this purpose and it was actually from this unit that the first combat action against an Allied aircraft occurred on 26 July 44.

616 Squadron took delivery of the first of their Meteors on 12 July 44 and commenced training (just like Erprobungskommando 262) and it wasn't until 27 July 44 that the Meteor encountered an enemy aircrat (V-1), though due to complications, it wasn't until 4 August 44 that a V-1 was successfully brought down.

The dates of the timelines are so close to each other, it's almost down to the hour...


----------



## nuuumannn (May 19, 2014)

Yep, it boils down to the difference between an operational squadron and a test unit. 616 Sqn was a fully fledged squadron within the RAF order of battle that gave up its Spitfires to transition to the Meteor, whereas Ekdo 262 was formed specifically to trial the '262 _before_ it entered squadron service.


----------



## GrauGeist (May 19, 2014)

What fascinates me, is the timeline...

Like I mentioned, it was so close in many cases, it was down to mere hours between comparable events.


----------



## stona (May 19, 2014)

nuuumannn said:


> Yep, it boils down to the difference between an operational squadron and a test unit. 616 Sqn was a fully fledged squadron within the RAF order of battle that gave up its Spitfires to transition to the Meteor, whereas Ekdo 262 was formed specifically to trial the '262 _before_ it entered squadron service.



Erprobungskommando were operational units. They were not testing the aircraft per se but its operational capabilities. It is sometimes referred to as 'service testing' in English. In the RAF there was no equivalent unit and following acceptance, new types were worked up in operational squadrons, usually out of harm's way.

616 Sqn was really doing the same job on the Meteor as Ekdo 262 was doing on the Me 262.

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## davebender (May 19, 2014)

Kaman H-43 and K-MAX are direct decedents of Flettner FI-282 helicopter.


----------



## GrauGeist (May 19, 2014)

davebender said:


> Kaman H-43 and K-MAX are direct decedents of Flettner FI-282 helicopter.


Only because Anton Flettner was hired as chief designer for Kaman...

It wasn't a copy, it was a continuation. And it was post-war.

Sikorsky, on the other hand, developed his designs based on his own engineering independent of the helicopters being developed in Germany during the war.


----------



## The Basket (May 19, 2014)

stona said:


> Apart from every rocket powered vertical take off craft since
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Steve



Again the Natter hasnt been copied. 

R4 is new. New to war. Revolutionary. Started helicopters in combat.
Not the concept but actual real.
Sikorsky invented the modern helicopter and the R-4 was his first mass production chopper.
The Black Hawk UH-60 aint Flettner.


----------



## BiffF15 (May 19, 2014)

This is a tough one, as the distinction between revolutionary and innovative can be blurred depending on how you interpret it. It seems the trend was improve, innovate, and revolutionize in that order. From my perspective most WW2 aircraft had lots of the first two, and some had all three.

My two cents goes to the guy / guys who standardized instrument layouts (I flew the T37 and it wasn't a pretty panel), which I believe is owed to the Brits (probably saved a LOT of lives and time required to transition). Also the designer who used a "little" ergonomics in how they laid out the cockpit (putting the gear handle on the left side to be used by the throttle hand), along with the Master Arm switch, and tank jettison. Nothing like taking off, then switching the stick to your left hand just so you can bring up the gear...

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 19, 2014)

The Basket said:


> Again the Natter hasnt been copied.
> 
> R4 is new. New to war. Revolutionary. Started helicopters in combat.
> Not the concept but actual real.
> ...



Again not revolutionary. It was evolutionary, but not the first "true helicopter". Sorry that you don't seem to understand the difference between evolutionary and revolutionary. Not trying to be a dick, please understand this.  And I do apologize if you take offense to that.

Sikorsky's VS-300 was of the same configuration, and first flew in 1939. The R-4 was developed directly from the VS-300. Because of this it was evolutionary.

If you really want to get technical the firsr successful single rotor helicopter was the Russian TsAGI-1-EA that first flew in 1931. I will still give it to the VS-300 however as it was more of a success.

I am not the smartest person in the world, but I know my helicopters having lived my whole life around them and having been a passion of mine.


----------



## The Basket (May 19, 2014)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Again not revolutionary. Sorry that you don't seem to understand.



I won't labour the point further.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 19, 2014)

The Basket said:


> I won't labour the point further.



As I stated above, my intent was not to belittle or offend and I apologize if it came across that way.

I added the reasons for why I say this to the post, but I think you were responding already while I was editing.


----------



## Garyt (May 19, 2014)

> So the Me262 by itself was not revolutionary.



Although if we look at it with this type of a crucible, there will be almost no aircraft that are revolutionary.

I'm not sure if evolutionary/revolutionary is the right way to classify fighter aircraft. After all, most if not all successful fighters are to far down the evolutionary tree if it were to truly be considered revolutionary. Revolutionary aircraft almost never make it into the role of a first line fighter without some evolutionary steps from the first test flights of an idea. For example, the ME262 was not the first jet powered aircraft. But the first jet powered aircraft is not going to make it in one step to a front line fighter.


----------



## bobbysocks (May 19, 2014)

i would say the BV 141 was revolutionary....tho really not worthy of repeating or elaborating upon....but it was of a unique design. the Do335 was in the same boat....


----------



## vikingBerserker (May 19, 2014)

The Basket said:


> The Natter truly revolutionary but it wasnt operational and didnt work as advertised.
> 
> And to my knowledge hasnt been copied.



I think the concept of a vertically launched fighter was used several times:

Convair XFY
Lockheed XFV
Ryan X-13

...and a host of other designs.


----------



## nuuumannn (May 19, 2014)

Steve, I'm aware of the role of the Ekdos, but - and this is the pedantic bit  - they weren't _squadrons_ and were disbanded once their role was complete. The Me 262 was first supplied to a bomber squadron before it went to JV 44.



> Although if we look at it with this type of a crucible, there will be almost no aircraft that are revolutionary. I'm not sure if evolutionary/revolutionary is the right way to classify fighter aircraft.



I think you might be misinterpreting the purpose of the thread, Gary, which was to determine which aircraft were revolutionary, not how to classify aircraft. You are right, so few aircraft types were revolutionary, but, like I said earlier, the Me 262 was not. Like Dave stated, the He 178 was. Even then, the first of something doesn't make it a revolution - it's the subsequent impact that the aircraft (which in itself might not necessarily be revolutionary, but might utilise revolutionary technology, like the Me 262) or technology had that makes it a revolution or not. Think about what happened during the Russian Revolution - a complete and immediate change of government and philosophy which brought about major changes to life within the country. In technology, aviation specifically, a revolution is the same - something that changed entirely the way a particular thing was done and that the revolutionary thing influenced everything that succeeded it in that particular field. 

An innovation, which most here seem to be associating revolution with, is different. Something that is innovative is a novel, but by no means a necessarily original or even advanced means of doing something. Its impact might be profound or it might not. The Concorde was innovative - first use of fly-by-wire, supersonic speed etc, but not a revolution, as its introduction did not change the way commercial passenger aircraft or operations were conducted, in fact in this aspect it was a failure; it created its own niche. The B747 had a far greater impact on commercial aviation - it hastened in the Economy Class revolution. Big difference.


----------



## Garyt (May 19, 2014)

> I think you might be misinterpreting the purpose of the thread, Gary, which was to determine which aircraft were revolutionary, not how to classify aircraft.



I understand that, perhaps I did not state properly what I meant. I was merely saying that there are going to be so few aircraft that are indeed revolutionary.

My point was something like the HE178 would never be a front line fighter - too early in the evolutionary process. Just like the Kitty Hawk would never be utilized as a fighter.

The Junkers-1 Eindecker was the first all metal monoplane - but again, never an operational fighter. The Fokker Eindecker on the other hand might be "revolutionary" as it was fitted with the interrupter gear. But is it truly a revolutionary aircraft, or is it the weapon, the interrupter gear that is revolutionary? Just like withthe B-29, is it the Atomic bomb that is revolutionary?


----------



## GrauGeist (May 19, 2014)

Those aircraft you listed were in fact, revolutionary.

I don't think that being an armed warplane is a requirement for being revolutionary, but the fact that they were the first of their kind that successfully (and repeatedly) proved the theory of their time.

The first successful internal combustion engine was certainly regarded as revolutionary, even though it didn't win any Grand Prix races.

Even the Space Shuttle can be regarded as a revolutionary way we went to space (even though it lacked machine guns), by being a reusable space vehicle instead of being a gumdrop on the top of a re-purposed ICBM.


----------



## parsifal (May 20, 2014)

rev·o·lu·tion·ar·y
[rev-uh-loo-shuh-ner-ee] Show IPA 

adjective 
1. 
of, pertaining to, characterized by, or of the nature of a revolution, or a sudden, complete, or marked change: a revolutionary junta. 

2. 
radically new or innovative; outside or beyond established procedure, principles, etc.: a revolutionary discovery. 

3. 
( initial capital letter ) of or pertaining to the american revolution or to the period contemporaneous with it in U.S. history: Revolutionary heroes; Revolutionary weapons. 

4. 
revolving. 

noun, plural rev·o·lu·tion·ar·ies. 
5. 
a revolutionist.


----------



## Koopernic (May 20, 2014)

The Basket said:


> The Natter truly revolutionary but it wasnt operational and didnt work as advertised.
> 
> And to my knowledge hasnt been copied.
> 
> ...



Still, the German designs were quite practical, they had advantages in load lifting, C of G, *ease of flying* but disadvantages in top speed and in the case of the Flettener inter-meshing helicopters the safe approach was only to the front and rear (sides somewhat more dangerous) though they had a safe zone in the rear and no tail rotor strike problem. Helicopter manufacture stopped because of very aggressive production rationalizations. In a different strategic situation the Germans could have generated a massive military and logistics advantage for themselves.

The Focke-Achiles Drache could for instance lift out a partially stripped dowm Me 109 (2800kg/6000lbs) which means it could have also positioned, for instance, a 7.5cm PAK 40 AT gun in a mountain as that gun, with shield, weighed only 1425kg.

The helicopters are in no particular order Flettner, Focke-Achiles, kaman Kmax, Huski, Mil 12 and Kaman SH-2 Seasprite. Seasprite continued to use Flettner tabs for rotor pitch control.


----------



## nuuumannn (May 20, 2014)

> Flettner, Focke-Achiles, kaman Kmax, Huski, Mil 12 and Kaman SH-2 Seasprite.



Here, let me help you: From top, Mil V-12, Kaman HH-43 Husky, Flettner Fl 282 Kolibri, Focke Achgelis Fa 223 Drache, Kaman K-Max.


----------



## buffnut453 (May 20, 2014)

bobbysocks said:


> i would say the BV 141 was revolutionary....tho really not worthy of repeating or elaborating upon....but it was of a unique design. the Do335 was in the same boat....



Nah...just evolving in the wrong direction. 

Sorry...couldn't resist. 

This is an interesting discussion, though. Strictly speaking, nothing in aviation is "revolutionary" because it all builds on the corpus of existing knowledge and available technologies. Thus, by its very nature, aviation is evolutionary - for how many years did kids make paper darts (tailless delta airframe) before such designs could be implemented in practical manned aircraft? If we're going to accept the tenet of aviation being evolutionary in nature, then we will get evolutionary dead-ends like the Bv141, Natter, Me163 - one could argue that swing wing technology was an evolutionary dead end because it was ultimately (and permanently) superseded by a better solution.

I do think we can point to outstanding examples of airframes that pushed the boundaries of that evolution which are, to all intents and purposes, revolutionary. Those boundaries could be technical (eg He178, Me262, radar, navaids) or doctrinal (eg Mustang, Mosquito) or a combination of the two (eg GCI). In some cases, the actual military scope of the evolution is tough to define but the subsequent civilian application did change the world (eg DC-3).

I fear we risk tying ourselves in knots trying to draw a line between supreme evolution and revolutionary but that's part of the fun of this kind of discussion - we all have opinions and all are valid (at least in our own minds!).


----------



## stona (May 20, 2014)

nuuumannn said:


> Steve, I'm aware of the role of the Ekdos, but - and this is the pedantic bit  - they weren't _squadrons_ and were disbanded once their role was complete. The Me 262 was first supplied to a bomber squadron before it went to JV 44.



That is pedantic. Ekdo 262 was engaging and destroying enemy aircraft (not unmanned 'drones') _in the air _within three months of receiving the Me 262. Last time I looked the Meteor destroyed precisely zero enemy aircraft_ in the air_ during WW2. The RAF was reluctant to put it in harm's way and, unlike the Luftwaffe, had no need to do so.

The Meteor was a very poor V-1 interceptor due to its slow acceleration. Wing Commander R.P. Beamont 'borrowed' a 616 Sqn Meteor on 26th August 1944 and attempted to fly it against a V-1. He was not impressed, his verdict on the Meteor, in this role, was that "it was not much good". As a man who shot down 30 V-1s flying Tempests, he would know.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## bada (May 20, 2014)

BiffF15 said:


> This is a tough one, as the distinction between revolutionary and innovative can be blurred depending on how you interpret it. It seems the trend was improve, innovate, and revolutionize in that order. From my perspective most WW2 aircraft had lots of the first two, and some had all three.
> 
> My two cents goes to the guy / guys who standardized instrument layouts (I flew the T37 and it wasn't a pretty panel), which I believe is owed to the Brits (probably saved a LOT of lives and time required to transition). Also the designer who used a "little" ergonomics in how they laid out the cockpit (putting the gear handle on the left side to be used by the throttle hand), along with the Master Arm switch, and tank jettison. Nothing like taking off, then switching the stick to your left hand just so you can bring up the gear...
> 
> ...



Agree with you.
Say thanks to Kurt Tank, as the first to build a cockpit around and for the pilot. the Fw190 being revolutionary on this point, it was the first plane with an ergonomic cockpit also allowing a higher G-tolerance for the pilot.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## stona (May 20, 2014)

Watch early Spitfires 'porpoising' after take off as the pilot flies one handed and pumps up the gear manually. Does that make the installation of a hydraulic pump revolutionary ? 

....I'll get me coat....

Cheers

Steve


----------



## Shortround6 (May 20, 2014)

Naah, it's evolutionary.
from the 28-30 turns on a hand crank mechanism using cables through the hydraulic pump (hand powered) to electric powered hydraulic pumps 

I guess it depends on what you call revolutionary. The First "metal" airplanes only changed the material and not the shape of the aircraft (or airfoil) but the advantages of the strength to weight ratio of the metal alloys soon made it hard for large wooden aircraft to compete. Even small things like controllable pitch propellers might be called "evolutionary" but without them _viable_ commercial aviation may not have been possible. Commercial aviation before the controllable pitch propeller having existed in part due to government subsidies. It wasn't a economically vialbe business on it's own. 

Certain aircraft had revolutionary effects. The DC-3 revolutionized the aircraft industry even if it was strictly an evolution of the DC-2. The DC-3 offered operating economy (cost per seat mile flown) such that an airline could actually make money flying passengers _without_ subsidies or airmail contracts. It also changed the bar for all airliners to follow. *ALL* airliners _after_ the DC-3 were _expected_ to make money flying passengers only on scheduled flights. Air freight was a bonus. 

Some fighters and bombers may have had the same effect. Once seen or used they exhibited such an effect or influence that many designs in the works were simply thrown out and new designs started.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Njaco (May 20, 2014)

parsifal said:


> rev·o·lu·tion·ar·y
> [rev-uh-loo-shuh-ner-ee] Show IPA
> 
> adjective
> ...




....and with that I give my vote to the Me 262. Not the first jet and certainly not the best of its breed, but it changed the way air combat was looked at and led to the modern AF we have today.


----------



## Balljoint (May 20, 2014)

OK. Tough panel; but I’ll submit the P-51; not so much as an airframe but as fulfilling a role thought to be impossible. In the early 40’s the thought of a fighter able to hold its own against interceptors while having the range of bombers was ridiculed. The P-51 wasn’t the only plane with the incipient capability in the role –just the first and probably the best. It revolutionized tactics and strategies,

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Garyt (May 20, 2014)

> one could argue that swing wing technology was an evolutionary dead end because it was ultimately (and permanently) superseded by a better solution.



Well for that matter, we can say the same about piston powered aircraft, which were superseded by jet aircraft. Piston aircraft were more successful or propagated if you would more, but you can liken piston aircraft to the dinosaur and perhaps the swing wing to sail finned reptiles.


----------



## gjs238 (May 20, 2014)

Njaco said:


> ....and with that I give my vote to the Me 262. Not the first jet and certainly not the best of its breed, but it changed the way air combat was looked at and led to the modern AF we have today.



You wouldn't be biased by your sig pic would you?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (May 20, 2014)

How about aircraft that werent themselves revolutionary but caused a revolution in aircraft design, armament and tactics.


----------



## GrauGeist (May 20, 2014)

An often overlooked revolutionary aircraft would be the Me323.

While it can be said that it was an innovation, it actually revolutionized military heavy lift missions with it's innovative features, something that hadn't been done before on this scale. Modern heavy transport can be traced back to this aircraft.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## bobbysocks (May 20, 2014)

kind of looks like a huge sikorsky H19 helo with wings....


----------



## nuuumannn (May 20, 2014)

> How about aircraft that werent themselves revolutionary but caused a revolution in aircraft design, armament and tactics.



...and this is where most of the aircraft mentioned here fall. Sorry, Balljoint, I don't consider the Mustang in itself revolutionary; the concepts it was advocating existed before and were already being practised; it was the epitome of its specific role and Luftwaffe tactics to counter it as a long range escort were no different to any other aircraft the USAAF employed in the role. 

Chris, the Me 262 in itself was not a revolution; it was a part of one taking place and it had its Allied contemporaries; it also wasn't the first jet fighter, although as it has been stated here earlier it was the first jet fighter to go into combat, but also, like I said earlier, it took conventional means to counter the threat. The tactics used against it were conventional and yes, its appearance startled the Allies, but its impact _at the time_ was not as great as we like to place credence on here. Jets were already in production in Britain and the USA at the same time as the '262; like I said, the revolution in aircraft powerplant technology was already taking place, with the '262 as one of its leading proponents. The Germans also rushed it into service prematurely, which, with its deficiencies, meant it was never going to live up to its promise. It was certainly innovative and bears kudos for that, but it was not the revolution; it was a leading player in it.

The 262 did not really bring about a change in tactics used by the Allies; it was defeated by conventional and soundly practised means; bombing of factories, shooting down the aircraft as they approached to land etc. High speed air combat tactics in jets were evolved post WW2 when jet vs jet combat took place. Fighting the 262 during WW2 could and was done with piston engined aircraft using existing tactics; it's only real advantage was its speed. In this case, the Allies had more to fear from the Me 163, which was faster and more difficult to shoot down, but was saddled with its own set of deficiencies.

The RAF reconsidered its position on the Me 262 threat, which early intel in late 1943 had led the Brits to think that by late 1944 the Germans would have some 1000 jet powered aircraft in service, both 262s and 163s, but this was an over estimation and the British realised this by mid/late 1944, so its threat was played down, because the numbers were nowhere near what was presumed. The USAAF of course had a different view because it was its bombers being shot down by the 262, but its response was not jet fighters, but the bombing of factories and airfields. Fighter tactics did not change all that much to what had gone before; it was business as usual and, like the V1 threat, as much as resources were diverted to counter it, the Allies did so conventionally. The fact that the 262 was studied extensively post war adds to its impact and influence, but note that its technological design was not employed extensively post war; the F-86 might have had wing slats and swept wings, but the 262 offered little else and the Americans and British relied on a _combination of captured material and their own research _to produce their next jet fighters.


----------



## syscom3 (May 20, 2014)

B17. Four engines, power turrets, heavy MG's and an acceptable quality bomb sight was revolutionary in the late 30's.

P51. Dont think that combining everything essential about a fighter into one single airframe wasn't a game changer?

Me262. Speed and firepower is everything.

B29. Revolutionary from an economics and systems approach. Dont underestimate the revolutionary change in weapons procurement and how large weapons systems were manged before and after the XB29 first flew.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (May 20, 2014)

> Four engines, power turrets, heavy MG's and an acceptable quality bomb sight was revolutionary in the late 30's



B-17 didn't have power turrets in the 1930s; the Brits introduced these into four engined bombers (and bombers in general before anyone else) before the B-17. In fact it was a British version of the Liberator that was the first American four engined bomber with powered turrets (British turrets, too); the Liberator Mk.II.



> P51. Dont think that combining everything essential about a fighter into one single airframe wasn't a game changer?



Game changer yes, revolutionary, no. Besides, it didn't have everything; still could be out turned and out climbed by existing fighters (remember it was designed for the Brits as a replcement for the P-40 and not as a long range fighter escort).



> Me262. Speed and firepower is everything.



Me 163 was faster and harder to catch. Read my post above.



> B29. Revolutionary from an economics and systems approach.



Could be argued that it was the epitome of the evolution of piston engined bombers. Its revolution was its weapon; the atom bomb, but to the Russians the B-29 was revolutionary, since they had never built anything like it before, so it changed their entire aviation industry.


----------



## Juha (May 20, 2014)

stona said:


> ...The Meteor was a very poor V-1 interceptor due to its slow acceleration. Wing Commander R.P. Beamont 'borrowed' a 616 Sqn Meteor on 26th August 1944 and attempted to fly it against a V-1. He was not impressed, his verdict on the Meteor, in this role, was that "it was not much good". As a man who shot down 30 V-1s flying Tempests, he would know.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Steve



I tended to agree but I cannot resist to add that after reading many of Beamont's oppinions I have a suspection that the main failing of Meteor in his mind was that it wasn't a product of Hawker Co.


----------



## Juha (May 20, 2014)

nuuumannn said:


> Steve, I'm aware of the role of the Ekdos, but - and this is the pedantic bit  - they weren't _squadrons_ and were disbanded once their role was complete. The Me 262 was first supplied to a bomber squadron before it went to JV 44...



Kommando Schenck was the first jet bomber unit, formated from parts of I./KG 51. Kdo Nowotny was the first jet fighter unit, it evoluated to (III./)JG 7 which was an earlier and much more important jet fighter unit than JV 44 ever was.


----------



## nuuumannn (May 20, 2014)

> He was not impressed, his verdict on the Meteor, in this role, was that "it was not much good". As a man who shot down 30 V-1s flying Tempests, he would know.



And that has to do with the Me 262 being revolutionary or not because... No one's debating the 262 entered service and combat before the Meteor.


----------



## buffnut453 (May 20, 2014)

nuuumannn said:


> B-17 didn't have power turrets in the 1930s; the Brits introduced these into four engined bombers (and bombers in general before anyone else) before the B-17. In fact it was a British version of the Liberator that was the first American four engined bomber with powered turrets (British turrets, too); the Liberator Mk.II.



For the uninitiated, the first aircraft with power turret was the Boulton Paul Overstrand which first flew in 1933 and entered service in 1936. Only 24 were built.


----------



## Garyt (May 20, 2014)

As I said, there can be such a crucible if you want to limit it to a truly revolutionary aircraft. The craft that make it will generally not be active craft in Ww2 but earlier prototypes. I'm going to use a far more lax definition for my own terms, though I'm not 100% sure what definition to use. The "game changer" is an interesting definition that can be taken many ways.

How I hate to see it used is for example when I have seen shows on the top 10 tanks, and the Sherman comes in higher than the German Panther. Why? Because there were so many Shermans made. That's the industrial might of the tank maker, not the tank itself. 



> P51. Dont think that combining everything essential about a fighter into one single airframe wasn't a game changer?



"Combining everything essential" is a very debatable issue. I'd say there are a handful of fighters that arguably combine the elements well. The Dora Focke Wulf, the Ki-84 Frank, the Corsair. All are similar in speed, The Dora and KI-84 have heavier armament, The Mustang and the Dora are probably the worst turners, the KI-84 being far superior to the others. The Mustang and the Dora are probably the worst climbers. The P-51 has the best range, but the KI-83 is very close, the Corsair not overly far behind.

But I guess "combines everything essential" - All these planes listed have some combination of "essentials", and the Mustang actually comes out ion the bottom in some of these areas. A great fighter? Yes. Arguably the best? Again, yes. But indeed arguably. Which does not IMO qualify it for revolutionary, as there are a handful of fighters with similar traits.

The Me262? I'd say yes. Avoiding air combat with fighters but hanging around there airbases to try to get them with out fuel and while they are landing are not "standard combat procedures". This was a very substantial change in tactics because in the air they were too difficult to combat properly.

Even possibly the Zero might get some votes, as the allies changed strategy to fight these planes. The B-17 possibly as well, as different techniques and strategies were used to combat these planes as they were far harder to bring down than less well armed bombers. I'd say they were a game changer due to their durability, they would have been a real big game changer had they been able to continue raids into Europe unescorted without losing too many of their own.


----------



## Shortround6 (May 20, 2014)

Juha said:


> I tended to agree but I cannot resist to add that after reading many of Beamont's oppinions I have a suspection that the main failing of Meteor in his mind was that it wasn't a product of Hawker Co.



It was as close as you were going to get as Gloster and Hawker were part of the same company at the time. Hawker having taken over Gloster in 1934 and then merging with Armstrong-Siddeley and Armstrong Whitworth. Bad mouthing what was basically a Hawker Siddeley product probably was frowned upon by the H-S management.


----------



## nuuumannn (May 20, 2014)

Thanks Buffnut. The Liberator Mk.II, also known as the LB-30, was also fitted with Boulton Paul turrets. It differed from the familiar US B-24 turret configuration in that it had its dorsal turret aft of the wing box, it also had a tail turret, but no nose turret. The aircraft were delivered to Britain without turrets and these were fitted on arrival. The first US B-24 with turrets was the B-24C, which the Liberator Mk.II is often mistaken as a variant of, at least in one book I've read. The B-24C had many differences, including the fitting of its dorsal turret forward of the wing, it also had turbosupercharged engines and the oil coolers either side of its engine nacelles in common with future B-24s that we are familiar with, whereas the Lib II did not. As a result, the B-24C could carry its load at higher altitudes than the Lib II. Only a small number were built, but these gave way the the first mass produced variant of the B-24, the 'D model. The Liberator II was built specifically for the British and is a lesser known variant of the big bomber; the USAAC recieved a few as LB-30s in the transport role; they weren't fitted with turrets and these went into combat against the Japanese in the opening stages of the Pacific War - the first US Liberators to see action.


----------



## nuuumannn (May 20, 2014)

> The Me262? I'd say yes. Avoiding air combat with fighters but hanging around there airbases to try to get them with out fuel and while they are landing are not "standard combat procedures". This was a very substantial change in tactics because in the air they were too difficult to combat properly.



That's a poor argument, Gary, you're gonna have to do better than that. 

"the Me 262 in itself was not a revolution; it was a part of one taking place and it had its Allied contemporaries; it also wasn't the first jet fighter, although as it has been stated here earlier it was the first jet fighter to go into combat, but also, like I said earlier, it took conventional means to counter the threat. The tactics used against it were conventional and yes, its appearance startled the Allies, but its impact at the time was not as great as we like to place credence on here. Jets were already in production in Britain and the USA at the same time as the '262; like I said, the revolution in aircraft powerplant technology was already taking place, with the '262 as one of its leading proponents. The Germans also rushed it into service prematurely, which, with its deficiencies, meant it was never going to live up to its promise. It was certainly innovative and bears kudos for that, but it was not the revolution; it was a leading player in it."

"The RAF reconsidered its position on the Me 262 threat, which early intel in late 1943 had led the Brits to think that by late 1944 the Germans would have some 1000 jet powered aircraft in service, both 262s and 163s, but this was an over estimation and the British realised this by mid/late 1944, so its threat was played down, because the numbers were nowhere near what was presumed. The USAAF of course had a different view because it was its bombers being shot down by the 262, but its response was not jet fighters, but the bombing of factories and airfields. Fighter tactics did not change all that much to what had gone before; it was business as usual and, like the V1 threat, as much as resources were diverted to counter it, the Allies did so conventionally. The fact that the 262 was studied extensively post war adds to its impact and influence, but note that its technological design was not employed extensively post war; the F-86 might have had wing slats and swept wings, but the 262 offered little else and the Americans and British relied on a combination of captured material and their own research to produce their next jet fighters."


----------



## Juha (May 20, 2014)

Garyt said:


> ...The Me262? I'd say yes. Avoiding air combat with fighters but hanging around there airbases to try to get them with out fuel and while they are landing are not "standard combat procedures". This was a very substantial change in tactics because in the air they were too difficult to combat properly...



In fact only a clear minority of Me 262s were shot down while landing.


----------



## nuuumannn (May 20, 2014)

> In fact only a clear minority of Me 262s were shot down while landing.



The British called it Rat Catching and it was highly dangerous to the RAF Tempests that were engaged in the tactic. The RAF discontinued the practise after a while owing to the losses suffered by their squadrons; the Germans cottoned on to what was going on and placed AA guns on the runway approach area and also took the measure of stationing Fw 190s nearby.


----------



## gjs238 (May 20, 2014)

nuuumannn said:


> The British called it Rat Catching and it was highly dangerous to the RAF Tempests that were engaged in the tactic. The RAF discontinued the practise after a while owing to the losses suffered by their squadrons; the Germans cottoned on to what was going on and placed AA guns on the runway approach area and also took the measure of stationing Fw 190s nearby.



So the Me-262 needed escort?


----------



## Juha (May 20, 2014)

Shortround6 said:


> It was as close as you were going to get as Gloster and Hawker were part of the same company at the time. Hawker having taken over Gloster in 1934 and then merging with Armstrong-Siddeley and Armstrong Whitworth. Bad mouthing what was basically a Hawker Siddeley product probably was frowned upon by the H-S management.



That's true but to put it more frankly I feel that in beamont's mind the only good planes were those with which beamont had extensive experience. I recall that in his mind the really great planes were Hurricane, Tempest, Canberra, EE P.1/ Lightning, TSR 2 if it had got the chance and somewhat surprisingly Ju 88G


----------



## Garyt (May 20, 2014)

> In fact only a clear minority of Me 262s were shot down while landing.



How many were shot down by fighters? And how many by bombers? And if we take out those that were shot down by fighters very near their own airfields? I'd be interested if anyone has any numbers.



> It was certainly innovative and bears kudos for that, but it was not the revolution; it was a leading player in it."



Well, I consider the leading player in a revolution to be the revolutionary

As it's been said before, aeronautics research does not take place in a vacuum, making it almost impossible for any aircraft to be revolutionary. The only way it could really happen by these rules is a prototype to be made, it is successful, and then put into full production with little in the way of changes. And no other powers can be researching or close to having success in researching the specifics that make this plane revolutionary.

I find it amusing though that there is more argument against the Me262 being revolutionary than there is an argument against the P-51 being revolutionary.


----------



## Juha (May 20, 2014)

nuuumannn said:


> The British called it Rat Catching and it was highly dangerous to the RAF Tempests that were engaged in the tactic. The RAF discontinued the practise after a while owing to the losses suffered by their squadrons; the Germans cottoned on to what was going on and placed AA guns on the runway approach area and also took the measure of stationing Fw 190s nearby.



Yes but it was also very dangerous to those Fw 190D pilots of III./JG 54 even if they were succesful in defending landing and taking off 262s.


----------



## Juha (May 20, 2014)

Hello Garyt
According to drgondog 07-15-2008 10:24 PM

"_So far, for the distribution of the combined 339FG, 352FG, 355FG and 357 FG jet awards, there were 44 Me 262 Awards. Of those (~40% of all 8th AF awards) that I have looked at in the last day -

25% (12)were hit at altitude and resulted in destruction or bail out
50% (22)were hit at altitude, chased and destroyed while attempting to reach protection of airfield flak and air cover but not in landing pattern.
25% (12) were destroyed during take off or landing."_

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/piston-engine-aircraft-jet-kills-1226.html


----------



## nuuumannn (May 20, 2014)

> So the Me-262 needed escort?


 

Here's a recollection from Grp Capt Wray, the only RAF pilot to shoot down two Me 262s:

"When Roland Beamont was shot down, I returned as Wing Leader of the five Tempest squadrons as Volkel which comprised No.122 Wing. It was here that combats by Tempests against the Me 262 took place - also sitings and often fruitless chases regularly occurred. I decided to put a squadron in the Achmer/Rheine/Hopsten area to try and prevent the Me 262s from getting airborne, and to catch those returning to base when they would be desperately short of fuel. To approach any German airfield exposed one to very accurate and heavy AA fire, so the patrolling squadron had to keep out of range until a target appeared - then it was simply a questionof sticking one's neck out. 

On one occasion when I was on patrol, a Me 262 returned. I should say at this stage, they were very difficult to see from above, and so we tended to put a section down at low level so that we could see the target more easily from beneath it, and thus report its position at the top cover formation. This sighting was reported, and we saw him approaching failry low from the west. I went down with my Number Two, but the flak was pretty intense, and before I had any chance to get close to him, he suddenly accelerated away and disappeared. needless to say, my aircraft was hit by AA, though not seriously."

"The term "Rat Catching" was, I believe coined by my successor as wing leader, Peter Brooker. Moreover, the system was changed so far as I know, in as much as a section was maintained in readiness at Volkel and directly it was known the jets were airborne, the section was scrambled to Rheine. Their aim was to catch the "Rat" before he could enter the flak lane. However, losses did occur and I think the practise was eventually stopped."

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Clayton Magnet (May 20, 2014)

Balljoint said:


> OK. Tough panel; but I’ll submit the P-51; not so much as an airframe but as fulfilling a role thought to be impossible. In the early 40’s the thought of a fighter able to hold its own against interceptors while having the range of bombers was ridiculed. The P-51 wasn’t the only plane with the incipient capability in the role –just the first and probably the best. It revolutionized tactics and strategies,




I would think the A6M came on the scene a little sooner than the P-51.


----------



## nuuumannn (May 20, 2014)

> Well, I consider the leading player in a revolution to be the revolutionary



Its jet engine was revolutionary, not the jet itself. The He 178, He 280 and Gloster E.28/39 preceded it. 



> I find it amusing though that there is more argument against the Me262 being revolutionary than there is an argument against the P-51 being revolutionary.



I'd hazard a guess at the fact that the Me 262 was at the cusp of a change in technology and so everyone thinks that it was a revolution in itself. Its position as the first jet fighter to see combat gives it kudos.



> And no other powers can be researching or close to having success in researching the specifics that make this plane revolutionary.



Now, you're getting the idea. Also its subsequent impact and the sweeping changes it - and it alone, brought about.


----------



## GrauGeist (May 20, 2014)

Garyt said:


> I find it amusing though that there is more argument against the Me262 being revolutionary than there is an argument against the P-51 being revolutionary.


Beyond that, in a twist of cruel irony, the P-51D proved to be the nemesis of the Me262...


----------



## Njaco (May 21, 2014)

nuuumannn said:


> ...and this is where most of the aircraft mentioned here fall. Sorry, Balljoint, I don't consider the Mustang in itself revolutionary; the concepts it was advocating existed before and were already being practised; it was the epitome of its specific role and Luftwaffe tactics to counter it as a long range escort were no different to any other aircraft the USAAF employed in the role.
> 
> Chris, the Me 262 in itself was not a revolution; it was a part of one taking place and it had its Allied contemporaries; it also wasn't the first jet fighter, although as it has been stated here earlier it was the first jet fighter to go into combat, but also, like I said earlier, it took conventional means to counter the threat. The tactics used against it were conventional and yes, its appearance startled the Allies, but its impact _at the time_ was not as great as we like to place credence on here. Jets were already in production in Britain and the USA at the same time as the '262; like I said, the revolution in aircraft powerplant technology was already taking place, with the '262 as one of its leading proponents. The Germans also rushed it into service prematurely, which, with its deficiencies, meant it was never going to live up to its promise. It was certainly innovative and bears kudos for that, but it was not the revolution; it was a leading player in it.
> 
> The 262 did not really bring about a change in tactics used by the Allies; *it was defeated by conventional and soundly practised means; bombing of factories*, (_if this be a criteria for "revolutionary" then I would believe that this fact would disallow ALL aircraft. I don't understand how bombing of its factories would prevent it from being "revolutionary"_.) shooting down the aircraft as they approached to land etc. High speed air combat tactics in jets were evolved post WW2 when jet vs jet combat took place. Fighting the 262 during WW2 could and was done with piston engined aircraft using existing tactics; it's only real advantage was its speed. In this case, the Allies had more to fear from the Me 163, which was faster and more difficult to shoot down, but was saddled with its own set of deficiencies.





> The RAF reconsidered its position on the Me 262 threat, which early intel in late 1943 had led the Brits to think that by late 1944 the Germans would have some 1000 jet powered aircraft in service, both 262s and 163s, but this was an over estimation and the British realised this by mid/late 1944, so its threat was played down, because the numbers were nowhere near what was presumed. The USAAF of course had a different view because it was its bombers being shot down by the 262, but its response was not jet fighters, but the bombing of factories and airfields. Fighter tactics did not change all that much to what had gone before; it was business as usual and, like the V1 threat, as much as resources were diverted to counter it, the Allies did so conventionally. The fact that the 262 was studied extensively post war adds to its impact and influence, but note that its technological design was not employed extensively post war; the F-86 might have had wing slats and swept wings, but the 262 offered little else and the Americans and British relied on a _combination of captured material and their own research _to produce their next jet fighters.



Disagree.

Just by its appearance - on mass strength - was enough to give the Allies fits. I have to say, you make it sound like its impact was barely a whimper. The 262 started the ball rolling on jet tactics - whether they were shot down by piston engine or not. It forced a new way to dogfight which for the most part is still practiced today. You were not going to be very innovative by continuing with piston vs piston; most dogfighting for that type of fight were already being implemented and did not work against the jets and rockets - the 262 changed that by forcing the Allies to re-think tactics.



> Fighter tactics did not change all that much to what had gone before; it was business as usual and, like the V1 threat, as much as resources were diverted to counter it, the Allies did so conventionally.



Again, I disagree for what I stated earlier. They did change because of the 262 and/or the 163. You really can't believe that anyone thought that piston vs piston dogfighting would work against jets? It HAD to change.

I still believe that the 262 brought more to the table in terms of revolutionary instead of alot of what has been offered. I'm really amazed at the laissez faire attitude about what aircraft were revolutionary while at the same time wildly promoting ground-breaking weapons like the V-1,V-2, etc. The thread is about "aircraft" and every aircraft that someone suggests is pushed aside as typical.

Like Parsifal tried to do, maybe we need a clarification on what exactly revolutionary means within the context of this thread.


----------



## stona (May 21, 2014)

Garyt said:


> Avoiding air combat with fighters but hanging around there airbases to try to get them with out fuel and while they are landing are not "standard combat procedures".



The night fighter intruders of both the RAF and Luftwaffe, flying over bases to catch bombers as they took off, or following the stream home to attack them as they landed might disagree. Targeting the Me 262 'in the circuit' is simply an adaptation of a commonly used tactic to a different operational requirement.

Cheers

Steve


----------



## nuuumannn (May 21, 2014)

I thought that was obvious and if you look back a few posts, you'll see the definitions, Chris.



> The 262 started the ball rolling on jet tactics - whether they were shot down by piston engine or not. It forced a new way to dogfight which for the most part is still practiced today. You were not going to be very innovative by continuing with piston vs piston; most dogfighting for that type of fight were already being implemented and did not work against the jets and rockets - the 262 changed that by forcing the Allies to re-think tactics.



Yep, the Allies had to re-think tactics to combat it, but using the aircraft they had. And, why wouldn't they? That alone doesn't make it a revolution. When the Fw 190 appeared the British also had to re think their tactics and also re think their whole future of fighter requirement. By the time the British became aware of the 262, the Gloster Meteor was already underway, although evidence of a twin engined German jet from PR images taken in 1943 resulted in an acceleration of the F.9/40 programme. Yes, the Me 262 threat was great - it gave the Brits a heck of a fright even before they had taken a photo of one, but to the RAF at any rate, by 1944 they had a vast amount of knowledge on the 262 and its capabilities, which were confirmed once wreckage of one that had crashed in France in August 1944 had been acquired and studied. On examining the wreckage, the scientists stated that they thought that although advanced, its manufacture was of poor quality and the engines unreliable. Also, the following report stated that "British jet-propelled fighters now in service have a lower wing loading than the Me 262 and thus better turning qualities. They should be able to out manoeuvre the 262."

This was only after examining wreckage of one. Once the first instance of a 262 being met in combat was reported back, even more of an idea was gained of what it was capable of, confirming what the British predicted its capabilities might have been. All this resulted in the RAF changing is stance on the 262 in late 1944. Here's a quote made on 5 September 1944 "The appearance of the Me 262 in considerable numbers by 1 October is not anticipated. There is no reason at present to suppose that the development of jet and rocket propelled aircraft is proceeding quickly enough to produce any radical alteration in the effectiveness of the German Air Force in 1944."

Here's Grp Capt Wray, whom I mentioned earlier: "When my Tempest wing was at Manston, near Ramsgate, we also had the first Meteor squadron there, No 616, commanded by Willy Nelson [!  ]. They appeared to be having teething troubles with this new form of propulsion, so we assumed that the Germans were having similar difficulties with their, what we thought at the time, few jet aircraft. On arrival in the Netherlands this was more or less confirmed, because we saw very few of them."



> You really can't believe that anyone thought that piston vs piston dogfighting would work against jets? It HAD to change.



Naturlich. But they did, though. Here is more text from the report mentioned above. "The Me 262 will have the usual poor performance of a jet aircraft at low speed. Thus it can be attacked most easily by fighters now in service when it is cruising or climbing. In manoeuvres, the Me 262 should be forced into tight turns or into a zoom, unless the altitude at which it is encountered is near the ceiling of the attacking aircraft."

Grp Capt Wray again: "It was all a bit of a hit and miss affair. So, no tactical instructions were issued. It was simply a known fact that to have any hope of engaging them in combat you had to have plenty of height above them, then try to get close enough to open fire before they saw you. Otherwise his acceleration was too great."

"Because of their limited endurance, these jets were airborne for a very short time, which again, made their interception very difficult. We were also back to the V1 situation where acceleration and opportunity over a short space of time was the name of the game."

I'm pretty certain that 616 Sqn and its Meteors in the Spring of 1944 would not have been too happy if you told them that what they were learning was as a result of experience with the 262, particularly by the time the squadron was operational the RAF had never encountered one in combat. And what about post war jet fighter tactics in the USAF and RAF? How much influence on post war jet tactics did it actually have, Chris?

The revolution was in the engines. The 262 was innovative, novel and one of the most important and influential aircraft of WW2, but that doesn't necessarily make the 262 a revolution. It wasn't the first jet fighter, it wasn't the fastest fighter either, nor the fastest climber, nor could it reach the highest altitude. Like I said, the revolution was already taking place. I doubt it's because of me with my laissez faire attitude, I think it might be that too many of us here hold the 262 up as being some kind of sacred cow.


----------



## bada (May 21, 2014)

Don't want to make a 262 post of it so excuse my little off topic here.

nuuumann, please stop comparing the 262 to the meteor, as the last one wouldn't have any chance in combat against a 262 in 44or45 (see RAE report from1946 on mike william's site, it's really worth of being fully read).

Mode OT off.


----------



## Jabberwocky (May 21, 2014)

If you label the Me-262 revolutionary, then you'd have to label the Meteor revolutionary as well.

Both were twin-engine jet-powered aircraft with conventional armament and tricycle landing gear. Both were introduced in mid 1944. Both were faster than contemporary piston-powered fighter aircraft.

That the Me-262 was a better aircraft than the early Meteors is actually besides the point. Its like arguing that the F-84 was revolutionary compared to the FJ-1, simply because it had better performance.


----------



## nuuumannn (May 21, 2014)

> nuuumann, please stop comparing the 262 to the meteor, as the last one wouldn't have any chance in combat against a 262 in 44 or 45



Why should I, Bada? They are both contemporaries and therefore invite comparison. The quote I provided was made by British Scientists during WW2 after the examination of wreckage, not a flying example. Why do you think that a Meteor would stand no chance against a '262, but a P-51, Tempest or Spitfire could and did? Clearly the tactics described in my post proved that contemporary piston engined fighters could exploit the '262's weaknesses, so there's no reason why a competently flown Meteor couldn't.


----------



## Milosh (May 21, 2014)

Jabberwocky said:


> If you label the Me-262 revolutionary, then you'd have to label the Meteor revolutionary as well.
> 
> Both were twin-engine jet-powered aircraft with conventional armament and tricycle landing gear. Both were introduced in mid 1944. Both were faster than contemporary piston-powered fighter aircraft.
> 
> That the Me-262 was a better aircraft than the early Meteors is actually besides the point. Its like arguing that the F-84 was revolutionary compared to the FJ-1, simply because it had better performance.



F.I Meteors were slow with many piston fighters being faster. It was not till the long nacelles were added (F.3s) that speed exceeded that of piston fighter.


----------



## bada (May 21, 2014)

Nuuumann, really, you should read the RAE report on the meteor. The greatest problems on the meteor were : Very heavy ailerons, what means a slow maneuvrability in combat, most of the combat maneuvres begin on the ailerons and the "Snaking" at high speed making the aiming very hard. The report is about the MK3 with newer type engines, but if we talk about 44/45 then the MK1 comes in mind.... 
Do not forget the 262 was drawn in 1940 and kept it's general shape untill the mass-production in44, so it was already an old plane when it entered combat, it wasn't revolutionary, but it's capabilities were (compared to other planes), speed is life. And it's not because some were shot down by slower planes than the plane was bad, but maybe because the pilots were not so used to high speeds (speaking about the KG pilots here) and used the plane wrongly.
Otherwise we could say the 109 was a bad plane because some old Pzl-11 and Pzl-7 shot them down in39. Like i wrote before, speed is life, drop speed and you're dead meat in a 44/45 situation above Germany.


----------



## Juha (May 21, 2014)

Hello Bada
in fact the wing of 262 got its more or less final plan in July 1943 but the placement of the main wheels was moved even later.


----------



## nuuumannn (May 21, 2014)

> F.I Meteors were slow with many piston fighters being faster. It was not till the long nacelles were added (F.3s) that speed exceeded that of piston fighter.



True, but I'd argue that the Meteor could accelerate to speed much faster than a piston fighter, which would give it a big head start. The F.III entered service with 616 Sqn in early December 1944, although the first few were equipped with the less powerful Welland. The Derwent powered F.IIIs were faster than these and the F.Is and the first arrived with the squadron on 18 December. Jabberwocky makes a valid point, here. P-51s were nearly 100 mph slower, yet still managed to defeat '262s, as did P-47s, Spitfires, Tempests etc.

On the subject of jet fighter tactics, for three days between the 10th and 13th October 1944, 616 Sqn sent four Meteors to Debden to practise affiliation tactics with the P-51Ds of the 4th Fighter Group. In that time the Meteors carried out dogfights and simulated attacks on the P-51s, from which the American pilots were expected to learn about jet fighter tactics for use against the 262s and Me 163s. These were described in an article on 616 Sqn I have as being hotly contested, but that the Meteors beat the P-51s in every engagement, which the Americans, it was said did concede without argument, largely owing to the jets being able to show the P-51s a clean pair of heels at their discretion.

it seems that despite the speed advantage the German jets had, the best way to defeat them was by using the same tactics that both the RAF and USAAF fighter pilots had been fighting with against the Luftwaffe since the beginning of the war. Height was all important and gave the attacker a distinct advantage. On a number of combats I've read about between piston engined fighters and the German jets, despite the jets zooming away in a dive, on a number of occasions the Allied pilots were able to re-engage with the jets owing to their lack of power and manoeuvrability at low speeds and altitudes. This is exactly what happened on 25 March 1945, when George Bostwick and Edwin Crosthwait, both flying P-47Ms of the 63rd FS were sent vainly pursuing Me 262s, which had attacked the bombers they were escorting, when one of them was spotted at low altitude near Parchim. Bostwick sent Crosthwait after it and it was brought down.


----------



## Njaco (May 21, 2014)

Understand your points nuuuumann but I still hold by my opinion.




> "The Me 262 will have the *usual *poor performance of a jet aircraft at low speed.



How many jet fighters were in operation prior to the 262 for anyone to have this opinion?


----------



## Glider (May 21, 2014)

Revolutionary aircraft of World war 2.

1 P51 and Zero - for proving that a very long range high performance single engine fighter was feasible
2 Meteor and 262 - first jet fighters
3 Beaufighter - the first true nightfighter with all the qualities needed, Range, Firepower, performance and its own radar
4 Il2 - love it or hate it, the concept was unique and it did what the Russian armed forces wanted it to do
5 Mosquito - because of its unique construction and proving the concept of an unarmed bomber
6 B29 - the first of the next generation of bombers
7 Avenger AEW - the first of a breed


----------



## Shortround6 (May 21, 2014)

Glider said:


> Revolutionary aircraft of World war 2.
> 
> 1 P51 and Zero - for proving that a very long range high performance single engine fighter was feasible
> 2 Meteor and 262 - first jet fighters
> ...




You are correct in that the Zero is not often given credit for it's escort role. 

However the IL2 was hardly revolutionary and the concept was about 20 years old. 

Junkers J.I - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Glider (May 21, 2014)

Shortround6 said:


> You are correct in that the Zero is not often given credit for it's escort role.
> 
> However the IL2 was hardly revolutionary and the concept was about 20 years old.
> 
> Junkers J.I - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



True, but you will not find another example between the two and it was a heck of a shock to the German armed forces. Everyone forgot about the concept until Vietnam and then the US developed the A10 which is the modern equivalent with similar advantages and disadvantages

Its worth pointing out the the RAF developed the Salamander during WW1 but it just missed the war


----------



## l'Omnivore Sobriquet (May 21, 2014)

The one revolutionary aircraft to me was the Boeing 307 Stratoliner. You know, that B-17 wings and powerplants wide-body liner, with a first, truely high altitude pressurised passenger cabin.

Four engined long-ranged high altitude airliner for comfort, performances, efficiency and safety. Quite a milestone for the future I think, and already a successful 'revolutionnary' concept in its days.

It got ready so early that the question is : is it really a WWII aircraft ?
To my taste yes, I'm more interested in the end 30ies - mid 40ies aviation than the precise WWII one.
In fact, my dream encyclopedia wouldn't be a marvelous "WWII aircrafts" one, but a 1937-1946 one, complete and global.
(more or less, from DC-2 to P-84 with everything in between.)

This said, the Ju-252 was just as good and pioneering but, did it set a trend ?
Hm.


----------



## bobbysocks (May 21, 2014)

how about the original bf 109? didnt it raise the bar to which fighter aircraft had to come up to? especially during the spanish civil war. of the fw 190? the brits had to mod up a spit to compete with it.


----------



## Juha (May 21, 2014)

bobbysocks said:


> how about the original bf 109? didnt it raise the bar to which fighter aircraft had to come up to? especially during the spanish civil war. of the fw 190? the brits had to mod up a spit to compete with it.



IMHO not, Polikarpov I-16 would be a better canditate, the first monoplane fighter with retractable undercarriage which went to mass production. 
But for the original candidates I would choose Me 262. It didn't revolutionice tactics, IIRC no one followed the LW idea to return 3 planes basic formation for the jet fighters but stayed with the rotte/leader-wingman system. But it opened the door to substantially higher combat speeds.


----------



## vikingBerserker (May 21, 2014)

What was the first radar equipped fighter?


----------



## Glider (May 21, 2014)

bobbysocks said:


> how about the original bf 109? didnt it raise the bar to which fighter aircraft had to come up to? especially during the spanish civil war. of the fw 190? the brits had to mod up a spit to compete with it.



Obviously this is a personal view but the 109 was an improvement or development which was being matched in other countries. The early Me109's were not that great, indeed were exaggerated as their opponents in the Spanish Civil war were not at the same level of development and the crews were hand picked. I would back the Hurricane of 1938 against the 109 C/D any time, just look at the tail of the 109 A-E for aerodynamics and its worth remembering that the D version which saw extensive service in the Battle for France, was often mauled by the French fighters particularly the P36.
It was the E version that set it apart and even here the Spit was its equal. This is one reason why I didn't include the Spit or 109 in my personal list of revolutionary aircraft, they were developments of a concept.

.


> What was the first radar equipped fighter? .


The Beaufighter was the first true nightfighter. A small number of Blenheim's were used but they lacked performance and firepower plus the radars were very unreliable and lacked range


----------



## Clayton Magnet (May 21, 2014)

If I remember correctly, according to Adolf Galland in his book "The first and the last", the Kondor legion 109C's were outperformed by the I-16's they often faced. A fighter at the end of its development potential is sometimes more effective than a more advanced type, just begining its own.


----------



## vikingBerserker (May 21, 2014)

Thanks G, then I would submit the first radar equipped fighter was indeed a revolutionary aircraft, after all majority of fighters today are so equipped.


----------



## parsifal (May 21, 2014)

> The Beaufighter was the first true nightfighter. A small number of Blenheim's were used but they lacked performance and firepower plus the radars were very unreliable and lacked range




I think thats right, but quite a number of Defiants were converted to the role in 1941, and as a stop gap, were quite successful.;


----------



## Garyt (May 21, 2014)

> Thanks G, then I would submit the first radar equipped fighter was indeed a revolutionary aircraft, after all majority of fighters today are so equipped.



But then radar would be the revolution, not the aircraft itself. Just as the weapon (the atomic bomb) does not make the B-29 Revolutionary.


----------



## nuuumannn (May 21, 2014)

> The Beaufighter was the first true nightfighter.



I would argue the Defiant, and although it was intended as an interim until Beaufighters and Mosquitoes appeared in numbers, was Britain's most successful night fighter between the end of August 1940 and late 1942. The Daffy Mk.II was specifically a night fighter variant equipped with Air Interception Radar and first flew in late 1940. 13 Squadrons were equipped with Defiants; it wasn't just a few converted airframes, but a purpose built night fighter. Most people forget that although it spent only eight months as a day fighter, it had a very successful two year career as Britain's premier front line night fighter.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (May 21, 2014)

> Understand your points nuuuumann but I still hold by my opinion.



Fair enough, Chris; you say potato, I say potato...

P-51 and Zero; nope, not a revolution at all - proved that long range was feasible, but it wasn't a neccessity for a fighter - not revolutionary; didn't change the way fighters were designed, built or operated, just provided a very useful dimension to each armed forces' operations.

The debate is out there on jet fighters - some say yes, I say no because I think the jet engine was the revolution, not the aircraft; you are also forgetting the He 280, the very first jet fighter.

Beaufighter - the first true nightfighter with all the qualities needed, Range, Firepower, performance and its own radar; doesn't make it revolutionary. all of these qualities had been applied in night fighters before and besides, like I said earlier, the Defiant was more successful in bringing down enemy aircraft as a night fighter than any other type between 1940 and 1942. The Beau was a multi role fighter and it wasn't the first.

Il-2, nope, old idea no modern technology, just sound idea in large numbers.

Mosquito. Nope, again, old construction methods cleverly applied, not a revolution in concept either, the high speed unarmed multi role bomber was not a new idea; it was an idea whose time had come; didn't start a revolution, just applying a different way of doing something - and the big heavily armed bomber still had life in it while Mossies were operating.

B-29, as a nuclear weapons delivery platform; the Bomb was the revolution. Like what's been said already, the B-29 was a revolution to the Russians for introducing construction methods and technologies hitherto unknown in that country, but common outside of Russia, also almost every big Russian aircraft benefitted from the B-29's DNA.

Avenger AEW; nope, the first airborne early warning aircraft was a Vickers Wellington fitted with a rotating radar on its spine, not unlike AWACS of today. It was used for hunting E boats in the Channel and another was used for hunting He 111s launching V1s against Britain in 1944. Beaufighters were the chosen interceptors.

C'mon guys.



> A revolution (from the Latin revolutio, "a turn around") is a fundamental change in power or organizational structures that takes place in a relatively short period of time. Aristotle described two types of political revolution:
> 
> 1.Complete change from one constitution to another
> 2.Modification of an existing constitution.[1]
> Revolutions have occurred through human history and vary widely in terms of methods, duration, and motivating ideology. Their results include major changes in culture, economy, and socio-political institutions.





> A sudden, vast change in a situation, a discipline, or the way of thinking and behaving. Antonym (of the sense “sudden, vast change”): evolution

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Glider (May 22, 2014)

nuuumannn said:


> I would argue the Defiant, and although it was intended as an interim until Beaufighters and Mosquitoes appeared in numbers, was Britain's most successful night fighter between the end of August 1940 and late 1942. The Daffy Mk.II was specifically a night fighter variant equipped with Air Interception Radar and first flew in late 1940. 13 Squadrons were equipped with Defiants; it wasn't just a few converted airframes, but a purpose built night fighter. Most people forget that although it spent only eight months as a day fighter, it had a very successful two year career as Britain's premier front line night fighter.



Its a fair point I admit but the timeline with the Beaufighter was almost identical and the Defiant lacked two major ingredients, firepower and range. Firepower was essential as you often only got one chance in a nightfighter. With the limitations of the radar if seen by the target the target had a good chance of escaping, and you have to look at the firepower installed in German nightfighters to prove that. Range was also important as the aircraft were often in the air for many hours and this was a limitation of the Me110 as a nightfighter. 

Besides how many other nightfighters relied on a turret?


----------



## Glider (May 22, 2014)

nuuumannn said:


> Fair enough, Chris; you say potato, I say potato...
> 
> P-51 and Zero; nope, not a revolution at all - proved that long range was feasible, but it wasn't a neccessity for a fighter - not revolutionary; didn't change the way fighters were designed, built or operated, just provided a very useful dimension to each armed forces' operations.


I would say yes. They were the first long ranged fighter that fundamentally changed the way control of the air was considered and fought. The impact on the deployment of bombers was totally rethought on the basis of this development. You could make a case for saying that these were the first true fighters and all other SE fighters were in fact interceptors



> Beaufighter - the first true nightfighter with all the qualities needed, Range, Firepower, performance and its own radar; doesn't make it revolutionary. all of these qualities had been applied in night fighters before and besides, like I said earlier, the Defiant was more successful in bringing down enemy aircraft as a night fighter than any other type between 1940 and 1942. The Beau was a multi role fighter and it wasn't the first.


I covered this in my previous posting. But if you could find a nightfighter fitted with radar before the Beaufighter I would be interested. The Blenheim was more an experiment and the Defiant a stopgap. 



> Il-2, nope, old idea no modern technology, just sound idea in large numbers.


Old forgotten idea reintroduced that changed the way GA missions were flown during and since the war. There was no other aircraft in the war like it and it was effective, if you have another WW2 example then I would take it.


> Mosquito. Nope, again, old construction methods cleverly applied, not a revolution in concept either, the high speed unarmed multi role bomber was not a new idea; it was an idea whose time had come; didn't start a revolution, just applying a different way of doing something - and the big heavily armed bomber still had life in it while Mossies were operating.


The concept of a wooden bomber in WW2 was unquestionably a new concept as was the way the aircraft was built using a mould. How anyone can say the unarmed bomber wasn't a new concept I find difficult to understand, if you can find an example then I would be interested. Re the comment about it not starting a revolution I can quote the Canberra, Vulcan, Victor, Valiant, Buccaneer, Grumman Intruder and finally it was never intended to replace the heavy bomber. 


> B-29, as a nuclear weapons delivery platform; the Bomb was the revolution. Like what's been said already, the B-29 was a revolution to the Russians for introducing construction methods and technologies hitherto unknown in that country, but common outside of Russia, also almost every big Russian aircraft benefitted from the B-29's DNA.


Most people would agree that HMS Dreadnought was a revolutionary warship as it spurred every major seagoing nation to follow its lead. However there was no new technology involved, bits had already been used here and there, it was the putting it all together, trusting the combination and getting it to work, that made it a revolution. The B29 is a similar situation. It was the first time all the new ideas were put together and it worked, Russia as you said followed its lead, it was a revolution. 



> Avenger AEW; nope, the first airborne early warning aircraft was a Vickers Wellington fitted with a rotating radar on its spine, not unlike AWACS of today. It was used for hunting E boats in the Channel and another was used for hunting He 111s launching V1s against Britain in 1944. Beaufighters were the chosen interceptors.


I was aware of the Wellington, however like the Blenheim as a nightfighter it was lacking in a number of aspects plus, it didn't work and I think you will find they also tried it on a Liberator. The Avenger AEW did work and that I what made the difference.

Aviation history is littered with ideas and experiments that didn't work, a revolutionary concept is one that does work and changes something in service.


----------



## Shortround6 (May 22, 2014)

Does an airplane have to totally change the aviation scene or just change one aspect of it? 

Change the way the _entire_ game is played or just change certain play combinations?

The use of the Zero as a long range escort _allowed_ existing bombers to successfully attack targets they could _NOT_ successfully attack without it. They changed the dynamic of air warfare in the the areas they operated in. 
Granted a lot of the actual air to air success was due to the pilots but give the same Japanese pilots Spitfires, or Hurricanes or P-39s or Bf 109s and the air to air combats would never have taken place and the Japanese bombers would have been much more restricted in the scope of their operations, The Japanese having learned that un-escorted bombers don't work very well quite a while before the same lesson sank into the western powers. 

Kind of the same with the Mustang. It was a bit more accidental rather than planned but without it the US bombing offensive would have either been called off/delayed or shifted to night bombing. It didn't _make_ the US planners think up long range daylight bombing but it sure allowed it to continue after the un-escorted bomber idea was shown to be flawed. 

As far as night fighters go, first attempts are rarely successful;






Lots of endurance (12-18 hours), powerful armament ( a 1 1/2 pounder gun) and even a search light to illuminate the target. 
Unfortunately it lacked speed, climb ( air ship dropping ballast could out climb it), and without any means of ground control it's ability to actually be within intercept distance of a target was dependent solely on chance. 

The Beaufighter and Defiant showed the way into a time when bombers could no longer depend on the cloak of darkness to carry out their raids. The British themselves (and the French and a few other countries) had split bomber types into the 'day bomber" and "night bomber" categories with different performance characteristics. With the coming of effective night fighters this distinction would cease to have any real meaning (the term _night_ was replaced by _all weather_) and the idea that large slow aircraft could meander about in enemy airspace hiding in the dark (or bad weather) went out the window. 
Revolutionary? perhaps not, but certainly changed not only some of the game plays (tactics) but the operational requirements (performance) of future aircraft procurement's.


----------



## GrauGeist (May 22, 2014)

It seems to me, the problem here is actually defining the term "revolutionary" as it applies to aerial warfare.

Aerial warfare initself is revolutionary and yet, there were certain innovations within that concept that could be viewed as _revolutionary advances_. Like the above mentioned Me323, which was an evolutionary process of fitting engines to a heavy transport glider. While it wasn't the first glider to become motorized, it was the first of it's kind and on such a scale, that it _revolutionized_ heavy transport. That would be a revolutionary process within the evolution of powered flight.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## RCAFson (May 22, 2014)

One of the most revolutionary aircraft of WW2, and perhaps of all time, was the Fairey Swordfish when combined with ASV II radar.


----------



## pbehn (May 22, 2014)

Its all about progression. Much of the Wright brothers time was spent on engines, what would they have done if someone had given them an allison or merlin engine? Probably said it was too heavy to ever go in an aeroplane. Behind the aircraft designer are an army of metallurgists electronics hydraulics and other experts making what was thought impossible possible.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 22, 2014)

RCAFson said:


> One of the most revolutionary aircraft of WW2, and perhaps of all time, was the Fairey Swordfish when combined with ASV II radar.



Not necessarily revolutionary, more ingenius than anything else.


----------



## nuuumannn (May 22, 2014)

Sorry, Glider, can't agree with you, all the points you made are perfectly valid; game changing, innovative, but not revolutionary. A revolution is an immediate and sweeping change to the status quo it that field, with far reaching influence. None of these things you listed brought about all that, with the possible exception of the B-29. All of the aircraft you mention did have considerable influence in their field, but they were conducted alongside their contemporaries; more like a better way of doing something. Like I said with the Mossie. it didn't change the way strategic bombing was conducted - the Atom Bomb did, however - because heavy bombers worked alongside Mosquitoes. You could argue that in their pathfinder role the Mossies had a bigger impact since they assisted in improving accuracy, but the Germans did this first.

Like Shortround stated, the Beaufighter was a combination of factors that brought about a successful night fighter, but it was neither the first, nor did it change the state of the art. The Defiant wasn't actually a stop gap; it was intended as a night fighter from the outset; its specification stipulated that it was to perform both duties and it did; one significantly better than the other. As for turrets, the Northrop P-61 springs to mind. Let's also remind ourselves of this quote made by William Sholto Douglas wrote on 10 July 1940: "the problem of the night fighter is still far from being solved. The Blenheim is too slow and the pilot's view is bad. The Beaufighter may possibly provide the solution, but at present it is a not very promising night fighter." Obviously Sholto Douglas was a little wide of the mark, but the quote proved thoughts on things were different back then.

If you are going to contest the turret idea, I'll advise you that in Deceomber 1940, four months _after_ the Defiant had been removed from day fighter duties - the Air Ministry had a specification for a night fighter to replace the Defiant that was released in October (F.18/40) rewritten to include a turret. The Beaufighter was put forward and actually fitted with a Defiant turret in early 1941, but it was found to be slower than the aircraft it was intended to replace. We often forget the role the turret played in British thinking at the time because of the preceived failure of the Defiant's concept during the day. By night however, the turret proved its worth; it meant the attacker could approach its victim from any position and fire at it. German nightfighter tactics are renown for the Schragemuzik idea of obliquely firing guns up into the belly of their foe, but Defiant gunners did this in practise first, although obviously the guns weren't fixed.

The specification was not fulfilled because the Mosquito proved to be a worthy night fighter, although its introduction into service was later than expected.


----------



## parsifal (May 22, 2014)

bobbysocks said:


> how about the original bf 109? didnt it raise the bar to which fighter aircraft had to come up to? especially during the spanish civil war. of the fw 190? the brits had to mod up a spit to compete with it.



That whole generation of fighter aircraft, top speeds above 300mph, wing mounted armament, armour, engines above 860hp, all more or less developed at the same time, completely changed the nature of air warfare. Me 109 was one of the best, but not the first.

As part of a group of a particular era of se fighters emerging just before the war, i would say, most certainly. As an individual aircraft type, I think its harder to argue it being a revolution on its own.


----------



## parsifal (May 22, 2014)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Not necessarily revolutionary, more ingenius than anything else.




I would list the swordfish as revolutionary, but not because of its technology , but because of what it did to naval warfare. before the swordfish, zealots like Billy Mitchell had espoused the value of airpower, and how it had rendered all other engines of war obsolete. But I think the world at large remained sceptical of that claim. For good reasons I might add. Then the Swordfish came along, along with the war. Until then the claims by the flyboys about the Battleship being knocked off its perch had been just that....claims. The Swordfish put the runs on the board, it sank battleships, and with that, came a seismic shift in the way naval power was measured. It was, in short, a revolution.


----------



## nuuumannn (May 23, 2014)

> The Swordfish put the runs on the board, it sank battleships, and with that, came a seismic shift in the way naval power was measured. It was, in short, a revolution.



Sorry, Parsifal, even after the Swordfish was retired from use as a torpedo bomber - after the Channel Dash, which was its last throw in that role, capital warships still had considerable mileage in them. Besides, the idea that aircraft could sink capital ships using torpedoes dates back before the Great War. The Royal Navy was the first to introduce and fire torpedoes from military aircraft; the Short 184 seaplane in the hands of Australian Arthur Longmore in 1914 was the first firing of a torpedo from a service aircraft, but Churchill was an advocate for concepts for the use of torpedoes from aeroplanes throughout the war. It's biggest advocate was Murray Sueter, who instigated the very first aircraft carrier based torpedo bomber, the Sopwith Cuckoo, which at the time there were no aircraft carriers, but the fact it was a land plane as opposed to a seaplane made the difference. Sueter was rewarded, owing to his persistence - and to get him out of the admiralty's hair, with the command of a Short 310 torpedo seaplane unit at Otranto with the specific intent of attacking the German battlecruiser Goeben.

Following from this the Admiralty raised specifications for Sopwith torpedoplanes for a raid against the High Seas Fleet in their own anchorage on the Shillig Roads. training for this actually commenced before the Armistice and the carrier Argus was specifically designated a torpedo aircraft carrier within the fleet. Post war, there were many advocates for the end of the battleship, including Sir Percy Scott and Sueter, whose book Airmen or Noahs is highly critical of the RN's continued use of them. 

Cuckoos remained in service until 1923, when they were replaced by Blackburn Darts. A year previous, 210 Sqn's Cuckoos carried out a mock attack using dummy torpedoes fired at heavy units on exercise of the Gosport coast. Several ships were sunk in the exercise. By the time the Swordfish came about and the Taranto raid went ahead, the idea had been around for some time. It was not the harbinger of the revolution. It could be argued that it was the aircraft carrier, rather than specifically the carrier based torpedoplane that brought about the demise of the big gun battleship.


----------



## Glider (May 23, 2014)

nuuumannn said:


> Sorry, Glider, can't agree with you, all the points you made are perfectly valid; game changing, innovative, but not revolutionary. A revolution is an immediate and sweeping change to the status quo it that field, with far reaching influence. None of these things you listed brought about all that, with the possible exception of the B-29. All of the aircraft you mention did have considerable influence in their field, but they were conducted alongside their contemporaries; more like a better way of doing something. Like I said with the Mossie. it didn't change the way strategic bombing was conducted - the Atom Bomb did, however - because heavy bombers worked alongside Mosquitoes. You could argue that in their pathfinder role the Mossies had a bigger impact since they assisted in improving accuracy, but the Germans did this first.


I can only go back to the example I used of HMS Dreadnaught. None of the technology was new but you will not find a naval historian of any nation that didn't consider it to be a revolution. What it did was put all the various pieces together into one vessel which worked and that caused the revolution. The same applies to the Beaufighter, the Avenger AEW and the B29. They had all the component parts put together for the first time in a package that worked and following developments followed that trend.

You seem stuck to the notion that the Mosquito was not a revolution because it didn't replace the strategic bomber, but it was never supposed too.

As for the turret on the P61 I can only point out that the early versions sometimes had the turret removed, no other nation at the time or since has had a turret and finally the length of service also supports the idea.


As for the quote made by William Sholto Douglas wrote_ on 10 July 1940: "the problem of the night fighter is still far from being solved. The Blenheim is too slow and the pilot's view is bad. The Beaufighter may possibly provide the solution, but at present it is a not very promising night fighter."_ _Obviously Sholto Douglas was a little wide of the mark, but the quote proved thoughts on things were different back then_. I wonder what his thoughts were in July 1941 or later. 



> The specification was not fulfilled because the Mosquito proved to be a worthy night fighter, although its introduction into service was later than expected .


 The specification wasn't fulfilled because the idea was a bad one and not followed up.


----------



## GrauGeist (May 23, 2014)

Glider said:


> ...no other nation at the time *or since has had a turret* and finally the length of service also supports the idea...


And yet: 


> The turret at the nose of the aircraft swivels towards the target and a 1.5m telescope mirror system inside the nose focuses the laser beam onto the missile. The laser beam locks onto the missile, which is destroyed near its launch area within seconds of lock-on.


Airborne Laser System (ABL) YAL 1A - Airforce Technology

Nothing new under the sun

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (May 23, 2014)

> I can only go back to the example I used of HMS Dreadnaught. None of the technology was new but you will not find a naval historian of any nation that didn't consider it to be a revolution.



I can name a few; Sir Percy Scott, modern historian Anthony Preston. This quote from Preston: " She was a logical step in British battleship design rather than a sudden departure..." Conway's All the world's battleships 1960 to the present.



> You seem stuck to the notion that the Mosquito was not a revolution because it didn't replace the strategic bomber, but it was never supposed too.



That's not the only reason. It didn't bring about sweeping change in the way Bomber Command carried out bombing operations, despite its considerable influence. You seem to be stuck on the fact that it did.



> As for the turret on the P61 I can only point out that the early versions sometimes had the turret removed, no other nation at the time or since has had a turret and finally the length of service also supports the idea.



Doesn't mean it was a bad idea at the time or it wouldn't have been implemented.



> The specification wasn't fulfilled because the idea was a bad one and not followed up.



According to whom? You? Never seen that anywhere else.

Still not convinced Glider, you'll have to do better!


----------



## Aozora (May 23, 2014)

GrauGeist said:


> And yet:
> 
> 
> _View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26eqFN1BB70_
> ...


----------



## Shortround6 (May 23, 2014)

Let's not forget that the P-61 was designed to a specification for a 'joint' night fighter for US _and_ British forces. How much input the British had I don't know but the turret does look a bit suspicious 

The Night fighters _claimed_ a bit over 20 victories in April of 1941, a considerable increase over what they had been doing previously but then the bulk of the Luftwaffe departed for the eastern front so nobody _knows_ what a continuation of the German night bombing campaign would have looked like. 

As far as the Dreadnought goes, yes, in a way it was evolutionary but it was so different that it created not only a new class of ships but a new class of nations. Those that had _Dreadnoughts_ and those that didn't. The Number of old style _battleships_( a single big gun turret at each end) didn't count anymore. It created a new way to rate naval power. It caused major changes in infrastructure to accommodate it. New building slips, new docks, extra dredging of of harbors/anchorages, and was a partial reason for widening the Kiel Canal. 
Not too shabby for for ship that was merely evolutionary (granted other navies were working towards the same result, just slower)


----------



## Glider (May 23, 2014)

nuuumannn said:


> I can name a few; Sir Percy Scott, modern historian Anthony Preston. This quote from Preston: " She was a logical step in British battleship design rather than a sudden departure..." Conway's All the world's battleships 1960 to the present


Which is why as has been commented by Shortround, that all navies capital ships instantly became pre dreadnaughts or Dreadnaughts and even the slightly later vessels were known as Super Dreadnaughts.


> That's not the only reason. It didn't bring about sweeping change in the way Bomber Command carried out bombing operations, despite its considerable influence. You seem to be stuck on the fact that it did.


I believe they did. The LNSF was a unique force, the daylight bombing of targets deep in Germany often unescorted was a unique tactic both of which would be suicide in any other bomber. Plus as mentioned earlier the concept of an unarmed bomber was unique and continued with other successful bombers, something you haven't denied.


> Re the Turret _'Doesn't mean it was a bad idea at the time or it wouldn't have been implemented_.'


If it was a good idea it would have been implemented before on some of the designs it was tried on such as the Beaufighter or Mosquito, or it would have been used in other designs. It is fair to say that the two air forces with the most experience of night fighting were the Luftwaffe and the RAF. However neither implemented the idea of a turret on any of their operational aircraft post the Defiant. It was a rotten idea.



> Still not convinced Glider, you'll have to do better!



I will not convince you. If you cannot accept that a weapon system such as the Dreadnaught as revolutionary then you will never accept anything as revolutionary.


----------



## nuuumannn (May 23, 2014)

To be honest Glider, I was being facetious about the Dreadnought. You laid down a challenge and I brought it to the table  Sorry. 

You are right and I do actually agree with you about the Dreadnought; out of all the things you have listed as revolutionary, it was the only one that was, because of the profound and immediate change it had. So, while Preston - and others in fact, Peter Padfield, Siegfried Breyer, Richard Hough all say the same thing, is because the idea of all-big gun armament was one whose time had arrived, that was evolutionary, also if you look at the last pre-dreadnought class of battleship, the Lord Nelsons, they look like mini dreadnoughts. This is what the historians are saying; its design and concept was evolutionary. 

Needless to say though, to combine all-big gun armament (although the USS South Carolina was laid down before the Dreadnought and she had superimposed turrets - Dreadnought was finished first), steam turbine propulsion - the big revolutionary aspect here, advanced fire control, all in a big hull was a revolution as, like you said, it changed everything. Capital warships were redefined because of its existence.

This has been my point all along; none of the aircraft you listed did the same. Not the Mosquito, not the Beaufighter and not the Il-2. Conventional warfare continued apace exactly as it had done after they entered service as it had before these aircraft appeared. They introduced innovations, but these were not roundly and immediately adopted by everyone else, resulting in their predecessors becoming obsolete overnight. They didn't introduce sweeping and immediate change. No one considered their contemporaries to be obsolete, in fact, in the case of the Beaufighter, there was the Defiant and the Mosquito and the Mossie proved a better night fighter than the beaufighter in RAF service, not to forget the Bf 110 etc in Germany.

Compare the impact the Dreadnought had on naval warfare with these aircraft and you will understand why I contest them being a revolution.


----------



## parsifal (May 26, 2014)

nuuumannn said:


> Sorry, Parsifal, even after the Swordfish was retired from use as a torpedo bomber - after the Channel Dash, which was its last throw in that role, capital warships still had considerable mileage in them. Besides, the idea that aircraft could sink capital ships using torpedoes dates back before the Great War. The Royal Navy was the first to introduce and fire torpedoes from military aircraft; the Short 184 seaplane in the hands of Australian Arthur Longmore in 1914 was the first firing of a torpedo from a service aircraft, but Churchill was an advocate for concepts for the use of torpedoes from aeroplanes throughout the war. It's biggest advocate was Murray Sueter, who instigated the very first aircraft carrier based torpedo bomber, the Sopwith Cuckoo, which at the time there were no aircraft carriers, but the fact it was a land plane as opposed to a seaplane made the difference. Sueter was rewarded, owing to his persistence - and to get him out of the admiralty's hair, with the command of a Short 310 torpedo seaplane unit at Otranto with the specific intent of attacking the German battlecruiser Goeben.
> 
> Following from this the Admiralty raised specifications for Sopwith torpedoplanes for a raid against the High Seas Fleet in their own anchorage on the Shillig Roads. training for this actually commenced before the Armistice and the carrier Argus was specifically designated a torpedo aircraft carrier within the fleet. Post war, there were many advocates for the end of the battleship, including Sir Percy Scott and Sueter, whose book Airmen or Noahs is highly critical of the RN's continued use of them.
> 
> Cuckoos remained in service until 1923, when they were replaced by Blackburn Darts. A year previous, 210 Sqn's Cuckoos carried out a mock attack using dummy torpedoes fired at heavy units on exercise of the Gosport coast. Several ships were sunk in the exercise. By the time the Swordfish came about and the Taranto raid went ahead, the idea had been around for some time. It was not the harbinger of the revolution. It could be argued that it was the aircraft carrier, rather than specifically the carrier based torpedoplane that brought about the demise of the big gun battleship.




Intersting stuff, but the evidence that navies thought the Battleship was not the chif measure of naval power is simply not there before 1940. Aircraft were considered capable of scouting, spotting for the big guns, finishing off cripples, but not capable of defeating capital ships outright. After taranto, Bismark, Pearl Harbour and the destruction of Fce Z, nobody beleived battleships could operate except where airpower was either not available, or prevented from operating due to weather or daylight. 

No dispute that a lot of work was done before the Swordfish, but the achievements of the Swordish was the watershed that marked a change in the thinking and a passing of the baton as to what class of warships were the new capital ships. No longer was it the Battleship that was considered the final arbiter of naval power and force projection. These were still useful ships, but they had lost their position in the hierarchy, due in large measure to the success of that one anachronistic aircraft. Does that make it revolutionary. well not in the sense of technology, but certainly in the sense of the order of naval priorities, and what made operations possible.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (May 26, 2014)

> Aircraft were considered capable of scouting, spotting for the big guns, finishing off cripples, but not capable of defeating capital ships outright.



Of course they could. You have no evidence that they couldn't. Why would firing a torpedo from an aeroplane be any different from a U-boat sinking a battleship with a torpedo? I'm sorry Parsifal, I'm not convinced that the Swordfsih represented the shift in priorities of navies and I've never seen that mentioned anywhere else. The ideas for sinking capital ships with air launched torpedoes was around and definitely in the thoughts of naval stategists prior to the advent of Taranto and the Swordfish, otherwise why have aircraft carriers equipped with torpedo bombers? To take out stragglers? Again, show me the proof.



> No longer was it the Battleship that was considered the final arbiter of naval power and force projection. These were still useful ships, but they had lost their position in the hierarchy, due in large measure to the success of that one anachronistic aircraft.



You can also include carrier based dive bombers in there too, so again, although the Swordfish carried out the first sinking of battleships by aircraft, the Swordfish itself was not responsible for the shift in naval priorities. There's no reason to believe that any torpedo plane of its day couldn't have done the same thing, whether it was a Sopwith Cuckoo or a Blackburn Ripon. The Repulse and Prince of Wales were the first capital ships sunk at sea by torpedo carrying aircraft; these were twin engined long range land based bombers.



> Does that make it revolutionary. well not in the sense of technology, but certainly in the sense of the order of naval priorities, and what made operations possible.



The revolution you are specifying was the aircraft carrier, not specifically the Swordfish, to be honest. It was in the right place at the right time. If the RN had Blackburn Sharks, they would have taken the glory and were no less capable than the Swordfish. It was going to happen, Swordfish or not.


----------



## RCAFson (May 26, 2014)

The revolution that I was primarily referring to was the use of radar on strike aircraft to see through poor visibility and extend their horizon to the limit of their sensors - this ensured the dominance of strike aircraft over surface(d) warships. As a secondary factor it gave the FAA an ace up it's sleeve that no other navy possessed at the time.

The Swordfish also demonstrated the ability of TBs to effectively deny/destroy enemy capital ships; this confirmed the theory of aerial power projection via CVs.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (May 26, 2014)

A bit cheeky to claim the defiant was designed as a night fighter, it was in the spec but it was in the spec for hurricane and spitfire too

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (May 27, 2014)

> A bit cheeky to claim the defiant was designed as a night fighter, it was in the spec but it was in the spec for hurricane and spitfire too



Gotta get it when you can when you have the reputation of the Defiant!  

Not really, Pbehn, but I see where you are coming form. The Derfiant spec was for a day and night fighter - not specifically the latter and yes, other fighters were also specified for night ops, but the Defiant proved more successful than the Spit and Hurri in the role. The Hurricane could be flown at night without inducing pilot fatigue far more successfully than the Spitfire, but with a crew of two, the Defiant was better suited to the role.


----------



## OldSkeptic (May 28, 2014)

Fairly easy.

Me-109 - first successful monoplane fighter, all monocoque, etc.
Me-109 - first real successful single engined fighter bomber. Nearly all other fighter bombers were 2nd line aircraft and relegated to the FB role. The 109 when it dropped its bomb was a fighter again, the Germans did it in 1940, took the British until late 1942 to do the same......
Me-110 - first fighter bomber, (just pipped the 109).
Spitfire - first plane with advanced aerodynamics and hence became the most expandable fighter of the war (hence it could match the 109 climb and speed n the Bob with a greater weight with about the same or even less engine power).
Mustang - first true long range (actually VLR) fighter (and the first to utilise the Meredith effect fully to reduce radiator drag by 90%, compared to the 50%+ of the Spit and 109, though the Mossie wasn't that far behind)
Zero - first true high performance, long range (LR) carrier fighter aircraft.
Mosquito - first true schnellbomber (plus a lot of other things).
Beaufighter - first true nightfighter (though the Me-110 wasn't that far behind, the Beau gets my award as the first).
Me-262 - first combat jet fighter.
Ar-234 - first combat jet schnellbomber (and other things too like recon).

Wellington conversion - first AWAC in the World.


Other Honorable mentions: 
Fw-109 - first plane to have really good ailerons (and best through WW2) to create 'rapid transient' manouevres (though it took decades for Boyd to systematically work out why that was so important). 
P-47 - US's first real competitive fighter, albeit really only at high altitudes.
Sunderland - first true LR anti-sub aircraft platform (that worked that is).
B-24 - First (only?) VLR anti-sub platform.
Hurricane - first 8 gun fighter (the comparable 109 of the time had 4, with 2 being slow RoF). A biplane to monoplane conversion that actually worked and could be easily built by those used to the wood and canvas and tube construction methodologies of the '30s.
Ilyushin Il-2 - first true CAS plane (instead of using an obsolete fighter).


----------



## pbehn (May 28, 2014)

nuuumannn said:


> Gotta get it when you can when you have the reputation of the Defiant!
> 
> Not really, Pbehn, but I see where you are coming form. The Derfiant spec was for a day and night fighter - not specifically the latter and yes, other fighters were also specified for night ops, but the Defiant proved more successful than the Spit and Hurri in the role. The Hurricane could be flown at night without inducing pilot fatigue far more successfully than the Spitfire, but with a crew of two, the Defiant was better suited to the role.



Thats what I meant nuuuuman , all three were supposed to be day/night fighters, the defiant had a second crew man to operate radar (probably not even thought of when the spec was issued)and provide an extra pair of mince pies.


----------



## Shortround6 (May 28, 2014)

Oh, boy!!!


OldSkeptic said:


> Fairly easy.





> Me-109 - first successful monoplane fighter, all monocoque, etc.


Russians and the I-16 may dispute that one. 



> Me-109 - first real successful single engined fighter bomber. Nearly all other fighter bombers were 2nd line aircraft and relegated to the FB role. The 109 when it dropped its bomb was a fighter again, the Germans did it in 1940, took the British until late 1942 to do the same......



Actually quite a few fighters from the 1930s were fighter bombers, just with smaller bomb loads, a fair number of fighters in WW I were also fighter bombers with four 20lb bombs but then they only had 110-200hp engines. 



> Me-110 - first fighter bomber, (just pipped the 109).



See above



> Spitfire - first plane with advanced aerodynamics and hence became the most expandable fighter of the war (hence it could match the 109 climb and speed n the Bob with a greater weight with about the same or even less engine power).
> Mustang - first true long range (actually VLR) fighter (and the first to utilise the Meredith effect fully to reduce radiator drag by 90%, compared to the 50%+ of the Spit and 109, though the Mossie wasn't that far behind)
> Zero - first true high performance, long range (LR) carrier fighter aircraft.


perhaps



> Mosquito - first true schnellbomber (plus a lot of other things).


Might be the first _successful_ schnellbomber but hardly the first that proposed or tried as a schnellbomber.



> Beaufighter - first true nightfighter (though the Me-110 wasn't that far behind, the Beau gets my award as the first).



Here we hit the difference between _first_ and _first successful._ The Blenheim being the first radar equipped night fighter and while not very successful that was due, in part to the faults of the early radar systems, lack of experience in night fighter crews, lack of experience of ground controllers in night interceptions (early radars having much less range than normal eyesight during daylight). When the Beaufighters show up they are able to take advantage of the months of experience provided by the Blenheims to go with the increase performance and armament. If the Beaufighters had been introduced much earlier with the first radar sets and inexperienced crews it would have taken them a number of months to show much in the way of results. 



> Me-262 - first combat jet fighter.
> Ar-234 - first combat jet schnellbomber (and other things too like recon).



No real arguement




> Wellington conversion - first AWAC in the World.



OK




> Other Honorable mentions:


 


> P-47 - US's first real competitive fighter, albeit really only at high altitudes.



Kind of leaves out the P-38?



> Sunderland - first true LR anti-sub aircraft platform (that worked that is).


Back to evolution or revolution?




Felixstowe F.2A
Granted it could only fly about 6 hours but what do you want from 700hp? Most fighters of the time were good for about 1 hour in the air. Anti-sub success is hard to measure in that sub _kills_ don't correspond to Merchant ships _not sunk_ in a linear fashion. 



> B-24 - First (only?) VLR anti-sub platform.



The idea wasn't revolutionary, just get a long range plane that you weren't using for other things and assign it to long range over water patrol. an extension of an idea that had been around for over 20 years. 



> Hurricane - first 8 gun fighter (the comparable 109 of the time had 4, with 2 being slow RoF). A biplane to monoplane conversion that actually worked and could be easily built by those used to the wood and canvas and tube construction methodologies of the '30s.



8 gun fighter yes ( or first aircraft with _heavy_ armament although French with 20mm gun through prop may disagree) but it was NOT a _biplane to monoplane conversion_ (please show the *bi-plane* Hurricane prototype or drawings). The Fury may look a bt like a Hurricane but I doubt much in the way of pieces/parts were interchangeable. Only wood used in the Hurricane were fairing strips to bulk out the fuselage to the desired shape from the square section of the tube truss frame. The wood bore NO structural load. 



> Ilyushin Il-2 - first true CAS plane (instead of using an obsolete fighter).



Well, if you don't like the Junkers J. I. how about the Sopwith Salamander






Almost 500 built even if the end of the war prevented actual combat use. Forward fuselage was a 605lb armoured box which isn't bad with a 230hp engine. Built in _parallel_ with the Sopwith Snipe so, no, it wasn't using an obsolete fighter.


----------



## nuuumannn (May 28, 2014)

> Fairly easy.



Lordy!



> Fw-109



Sez it all, really.



> B-24 - First (only?) VLR anti-sub platform.



Great War vintage Blackburn Kangaroo and lets not forget a generation of British non rigid airships that served faithfully as anti-sub maritime patrol aircraft, of which the North Sea Class had a nominal endurance of up to 12 hours.



> Me-109 - first real successful single engined fighter bomber.



Sopwith Tabloid carried out an attack against German airship sheds at Friedrichshafen in 1914, Sopwith Camels attacked the German airship sheds at Tondern in July 1918 - the very first successful aircraft carrier launched attack, from HMS Furious.

Revolutions? Nahhhh... What else you got?



> all three were supposed to be day/night fighters, the defiant had a second crew man to operate radar



Yes, Pbehn, but not all were actually as effective as night fighters as the Defiant was, because of its unique qualities. The proof was in the pudding; more enemy bombers operating over Great Britain by night were shot down by Defiants than by any other type between late 1940 and mid 1942. Pilot operated the radar, the gunner operated the guns.


----------



## GrauGeist (May 28, 2014)

OldSkeptic said:


> Hurricane - first 8 gun fighter (the comparable 109 of the time had 4, with 2 being slow RoF). A *biplane to monoplane conversion* that actually worked and could be easily built by those used to the wood and canvas and tube construction methodologies of the '30s.


Are you referring to the Hawker Hart






or the Hillson FH.40 Hurricane project?


----------



## Shortround6 (May 28, 2014)

I would note that the _name_ _"Fury monoplane"_ was more of a project name than a description of the actual aircraft. The Hurricane was 5 1/2 feet longer nose to tail than a Fury (and just about 3 ft longer than a two seat Hart). The prototype Hurricane was about 2000lbs heavier than a Fury and over 1000lbs heavier than a Hart carrying 500lbs worth of bombs. 

I really doubt that much, if any, Fury structure could be carried over.


----------



## Glider (May 28, 2014)

pbehn said:


> Thats what I meant nuuuuman , all three were supposed to be day/night fighters, the defiant had a second crew man to operate radar (probably not even thought of when the spec was issued)and provide an extra pair of mince pies.



In the Defiant the Pilot flew the aircraft and operated the radar, the gunner was a second pair of eyes and fired the guns. The workload was intense and a serious problem.


----------



## nuuumannn (May 30, 2014)

> The workload was intense and a serious problem.



Never seen it referred to as a _serious problem_, although it certainly was an intense period during an interception, but not outside of the abilities of British night fighter crews of the time. The CRT display was to the pilot's left and the control at his right, which enabled him to keep his left hand on the control column during an interception. The night fighters were obviously vectored to the general location of the enemy bomber by GCI, then found it using the radar set and the gunner's Mark One Eye Ball, which is how all previous interceptions were made.

Initially Mk.Is were fitted with the AI sets, N1553 being the first in November 1940, but delivered to Special Duties Flt on 23 April 1941. The problem with initial use of the AI Mk.IV radar sets was the unit itself and technical difficulties delayed its introduction until August 1941, by which time the first Mk.IIs were being delivered to No.23 MU, where the units were retrofitted to the complete aircraft. It wasn't until 25 January 1942 that 264 Sqn received its first radar equipped Mk.II. 96 Sqn was the first with the radar equipped Mk.I, in November 1941. Its issues were that the radar fit slowed the aircraft down even more. With the Mk.II's more powerful engine, this wasn't such an issue. By the end of October 1941, there were seven Defiant equipped night fighter squadrons scattered across the UK, with detachments at different bases from their own.

The Beaufighter by contrast was actually very difficult to fly on instruments for the pilot and more than one, including Cunningham commented on how tiring it was to do so, and that was without operating a radar unit. Good team work between the nav and the pilot was essential and Beaufighter pilots and W/Ops were paired up in OTU training and largely remained together throughout their careers, as did Daffy gunners and pilots. Beaufighter crews continued this practise in Coastal Command also. The Defiant's cockpit was better laid out for night flying than the Beaufighter's though. Once the Beaufighter Mk.II with its 'Evil' handling, as one pilot called it, entered service, accidents were frequent, especially on the ground. Mind you, flying into terrain at night was the biggest killer of British night fighter crews during the period of late 1940 to late 1942. RAF Charter Hall in Northumberland, where 54 OTU carried out night fighter training was blackly referred to as "Slaughter Hall".

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## OldSkeptic (May 30, 2014)

Few points. 

Can't find any mention of an I-16, I assume you mean Ilyushin.

Beaufighter and Mossie - I did say 'true'......

Even in WW1 (and the later 20s and 30s) those who carried bombs were either 2nd string fighters relegated to that task, or were designed for that role (hence lacking the performance as 'true' fighters).
Using that logic I don't actually class a Typhoon in '44 as a 'true' fighter bomber as it was (by then) uncompetitive as a fighter.

Sunderland B-24 - agree had long been a concept ... very few successful implementations though.

"Might be the first successful schnellbomber but hardly the first that proposed or tried as a schnellbomber."
Yes,. many tried ....and so many failed.....

A single 20mm through the prop is not 8 x 0.303 high rate of fire guns.

We may have defintion issues. I think of a 'successful' revolutionary aircraft as (a) not being a prototype but in full production (b) not just a concept.
Plus I did limit it to WW2.


----------



## nuuumannn (May 30, 2014)

> Can't find any mention of an I-16, I assume you mean Ilyushin.



Polikarpov I-16.








> We may have defintion issues. I think of a 'successful' revolutionary aircraft as (a) not being a prototype but in full production (b) not just a concept.



Again OldSkeptic, you are, like many people here, getting 'revolutionary' mixed up with 'game changers', which all the aircraft you mentioned were. A revolution is something more specific, though perhaps a little more difficult to define - if going by this thread is anything. Definitions of the term revolution can be found throughout the last 10 pages if you look.


----------



## OldSkeptic (May 30, 2014)

I don't think that plane changed anything, or was revolutionary ... the 109 was and did.

A dog, bit like you saying the 'Brewster Buffalo' was 'revolutionary '. It was a failed attempt at that sort of design, unlike the 109 which was ...massively.. hugely...tremendously...whatever... successful.

That's where I draw the line... prototypes, failed designs are not 'game changers'. They are just .. failures. Though to be fair they can point the way for the designers to make better ones.


----------



## tomo pauk (May 30, 2014)

No knowledge what so ever about the I-16, yet the later and similar Bf-109 was the revolutionar, while the I-16 was not?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## nuuumannn (May 30, 2014)

> I don't think that plane changed anything, or was revolutionary ... the 109 was and did.



No, the Bf 109 wasn't a revolution; it was an evolutionary step in fighter design. What was revolutionary about it? Fighter development got to the stage where all the modern features in the Bf 109 were able to be put in place in modern fighters around the world pretty much simultaneously, but it didn't spark any great and sudden changes in aircraft design. As for the I-16, it was the world's first monoplane fighter with retractable undercarriage.



> That's where I draw the line... prototypes, failed designs are not 'game changers'.



No one's saying they are. The issue looks to be your definition of revolution.



> A revolution (from the Latin revolutio, "a turn around") is a fundamental change in power or organizational structures that takes place in a relatively short period of time. Aristotle described two types of political revolution:
> 
> 1.Complete change from one constitution to another
> 2.Modification of an existing constitution.
> Revolutions have occurred through human history and vary widely in terms of methods, duration, and motivating ideology. Their results include major changes in culture, economy, and socio-political institutions.


----------



## Shortround6 (May 30, 2014)

> Can't find any mention of an I-16, I assume you mean Ilyushin.



See nice picture in Nuuumannn's post....first prototype flight 30 December 1933, was in squadron service before Bf 109 made it's first flight. 



> Beaufighter and Mossie - I did say 'true'.....



First _successful_ is not really revolutionary. The _idea/concept_ had been around for over 20 years and while the Blenheim night fighters were not particularly _successful_ from a kill standpoint they did make some interceptions and score a few kills. They also were the plane that worked out some of the kinks/problems with night intercepts using radar so that the Beaufighter could be a bit more successful sooner than if it was the plane that _introduced_ airborne radar. As a soon as a Blenheim made the _first_ successful radar night intercept the game was changed, it was just a question of how fast. 



> Even in WW1 (and the later 20s and 30s) those who carried bombs were either 2nd string fighters relegated to that task, or were designed for that role (hence lacking the performance as 'true' fighters).
> Using that logic I don't actually class a Typhoon in '44 as a 'true' fighter bomber as it was (by then) uncompetitive as a fighter.



Uh,,,,NO. Sopwith Camels and S.E.5a's were hardly 2nd string fighters. The Curtiss Goshawk was designed from the start to carry bombs:




This example may be a bit overdone. Usually load could include a 500lb under the fuselage _OR_ a 116lb under each wing or racks for smaller bombs. Grumman F3F could carry 116lb under each wing. P-26 could carry five 30lb or two 100lb bombs. 
He 51 had an internal rack/bay for six 10 kg bombs. There were more. 
These bomb racks were there from the start not added on years after the prototype first flew. 
P-40 had capabilities that were not used. While early P-40s did not have racks and P-36 didn't really use them teh export Hawk 75 was advertised as being able to carry a 500lb under the fuselage and a 100lb bomb under each wing (sound familiar for later P-40s?)
Export Hawk also had racks for samller bombs under the wings. The structural components and stress work was already done so _when_ the US/British decided to use the P-40 as a bomber it was merely a matter of installing the racks/controls, no _structural_ modifications needed. 



> Sunderland B-24 - agree had long been a concept ... very few successful implementations though


.

Actually even the WW I flying boats were fairly successful. Not in terms of U-boat kills but in terms of reducing areas U-boats could operate in and reducing sinkings by U-boats. Progress in powerplants and airframes allowed the range to be extended and heavier weapons loads and finally better sensors but again, that is much more evolution that revolution. 



> "Might be the first successful schnellbomber but hardly the first that proposed or tried as a schnellbomber."
> Yes,. many tried ....and so many failed.....



Actually a number tried and succeeded, at least for a number of months or even a year or so. Russian SB2 bombers being very difficult to intercept in Spain by He 51s and Fiat CR 32s. Likewise Do 17s and He 111 were very difficult for the Republican forces to intercept until more I-16s showed up. These temporary speed advantages were a big boost to the schnellbomber concept although most schnellbombers wound up being caught by slightly newer fighters. 



> A single 20mm through the prop is not 8 x 0.303 high rate of fire guns.



Most of the french fighters also had a single 7.5mg in each wing. Is a 20mm worth six .303s?




> We may have defintion issues. I think of a 'successful' revolutionary aircraft as (a) not being a prototype but in full production (b) not just a concept.
> Plus I did limit it to WW2.



I believe most of the planes I have mentioned were full production aircraft. I also firmly believe that a plane _cannot_ be called revolutionary in a limited time period by simply ignoring any and all planes of similar concept/mission that were designed and built _before_ the time period specified. 

The Ford V-8 engine of 1962 was _revolutionary_ in the 1960s _IF_ we ignore previous Ford V-8s. The Chevey V-8s, the rest of the GM V-8s and the Chrysler V-8s


----------



## nuuumannn (May 30, 2014)

> prototypes, failed designs are not 'game changers'.



I guess I should respond to this. One prototype that was not only a game changer, but also truly revolutionary was the Heinkel He 178; the world's first jet aircraft. Aviation changed after that.


----------



## vikingBerserker (May 30, 2014)

I agree, I think sometimes finding out what will not work can have a tremendous impact on what direction future designs will take.


----------



## GrauGeist (May 30, 2014)

There seems to be a little confusion between Evolution and Revolution when looking at certain types.

To put it in perspective, the jet age can be looked at as a tree. At the base, lies the He178, then you have certain milestones as the tree progresses. At the base, just above the He178, is the He280, the Me262 and Meteor. About that point, there are several branches, like the Ho229 and the P-59 which didn't get far. There's another branch there, that is the P-80 which grew a ways. Then above that is the F-86 and MiG-15 and so on and so on. There's numerous offshoots that never had a chance to mature for one reason or another. It's a complex tree, a very large tree with some great successes and some spectacular failures. All in the process of an evolving technology.

But all the branches lead back to a common point at the base of this great tree: they all point to the revolutionary type.


----------



## Glider (May 30, 2014)

nuuumannn said:


> Never seen it referred to as a _serious problem_, although it certainly was an intense period during an interception, but not outside of the abilities of British night fighter crews of the time.


I certainly have. The screen needed constant attention which is a problem if you are flying the aircraft at the same time.


> The night fighters were obviously vectored to the general location of the enemy bomber by GCI, then found it using the radar set and the gunner's Mark One Eye Ball, which is how all previous interceptions were made.


No all previous interceptions were made by the radar operator using the radar to close in on the target and then the pilot (or pilot and gunner in the Blenheim) using their eyes to spot the target. Only when the pilot had a firm view of the target would the radar op take his eyes off the screen


> Initially Mk.Is were fitted with the AI sets, N1553 being the first in November 1940, but delivered to Special Duties Flt on 23 April 1941. The problem with initial use of the AI Mk.IV radar sets was the unit itself and technical difficulties delayed its introduction until August 1941, by which time the first Mk.IIs were being delivered to No.23 MU, where the units were retrofitted to the complete aircraft. It wasn't until 25 January 1942 that 264 Sqn received its first radar equipped Mk.II. 96 Sqn was the first with the radar equipped Mk.I, in November 1941. Its issues were that the radar fit slowed the aircraft down even more. With the Mk.II's more powerful engine, this wasn't such an issue. By the end of October 1941, there were seven Defiant equipped night fighter squadrons scattered across the UK, with detachments at different bases from their own.


This is good stuff which clears up the timeline nicely, but it does pose a question. I proposed the Beaufighter to be the first as it was a nightfighter with all the components put into one package that worked. Performance, firepower, range and its own radar. You preferred the Defiant which didn't have an operational in service radar until approx. 12 months after the Beaufighter in November 1941 and then the Defiant was lacking performance to catch the latest intruders and started to be taken out of service in March 1942 about four months later.


> The Beaufighter by contrast was actually very difficult to fly on instruments for the pilot and more than one, including Cunningham commented on how tiring it was to do so, and that was without operating a radar unit.


I have never heard that the Beau was difficult to fly on instruments but I have heard considerable praise for its visibility which is so important in night fighting. It was heavy on the controls which made it tiring to fly but not because of any difficulty when on instruments


----------



## nuuumannn (May 30, 2014)

> I certainly have. The screen needed constant attention which is a problem if you are flying the aircraft at the same time.



Can you post sources that state the Defiant's pilot suffered a serious problem in this regard, then, Glider? Other radar equipped single-seat night fighters did not suffer too many issues in this respect. Like I said, not too much of an issue for existing British night fighter pilots.



> No, all previous interceptions were made by the radar operator using the radar to close in on the target and then the pilot (or pilot and gunner in the Blenheim) using their eyes to spot the target.



Isn't that what I just described? Prior to finding the target with the radar, each fighter was vectored to the area by GCI. Very few Blenheims were fitted with radar and the first kill by a radar equipped Blenheim was made on the night of 22/23 July 1940, prior to then, aircraft were traced, but not successfully attacked. The Blenheim squadrons, numbering six by the end of the Battle of Britain were eventually supplimented by Beaufighters in ones and twos from August 1940.



> I proposed the Beaufighter to be the first as it was a nightfighter with all the components put into one package that worked. Performance, firepower, range and its own radar. You preferred the Defiant which didn't have an operational in service radar until approx. 12 months after the Beaufighter in November 1941 and then the Defiant was lacking performance to catch the latest intruders and started to be taken out of service in March 1942 about four months later.



Yep, in terms of timeline, you are right, the Beaufighter equipped with radar entered service before the Defiant and yes, it was intended on being the next service night fighter. My introduction of the Defiant into the argument was that the Beaufighter did not bring about a revolution in night fighter design or tactic and that Defiants, despite their reputation proved as successful, in terms of kills against German bombers at a time when they were at their largest numbers in British skies, as the Beaufighter. The fact was, by mid 1941, there were as many Defiant squadrons as there were Beaufighter ones, and if the Defiant was not in use as a night fighter then that would have removed half of all the effective night fighters in Britain. I don't necessarily prefer the Daffy over the Beaufighter as a night fighter, but make the point that it was not the Silver Bullet you and others here are making it out to be.

In almost all respects it outclassed the Defiant, and even at the end of the Battle of Britain there were some six squadrons that were transitting to the Beaufighter from the Blenheim, and only two equipped with the Defiant, yet by mid/late 1941, the Defiant squadrons numbered the same as Beaufighter units. The reason, the Beaufighter encountered a number of issues that prevented a smooth transition into squadron service. Firstly, initial numbers were not large and it took longer than the Air Ministry anticipated to equip former Blenheim units in numbers. Secondly, the AI sets had many issues and were unreliable to say the least, although this also affected Daffy units. Thirdly, the handling issues that the Beaufighter suffered made the transition between the Blenheim and Defiant units lengthy and troublesome.



> I have never heard that the Beau was difficult to fly on instruments but I have heard considerable praise for its visibility which is so important in night fighting. It was heavy on the controls which made it tiring to fly but not because of any difficulty when on instruments.



When you fly by night, you normally fly on instruments at any rate, although even under VMC at night, instrument flying is still essential. Flt Lt Roderick Chisholm, 604 Sqn: "If there were sufficient external guides - a skyline or moonlit ground - it was easy enough to fly steadily, as in daylight. But if these aids were absent, the night very dark and visibility poor, instrument flying in the early Beaufighter called for unceasing and most exacting concentration."

John Cunningham, who needs little introduction: "It was a long hard grind and very frustrating. It was a struggle to continue flying on instruments at night."

The Beaufighter suffered handling difficulties in its initial versions, this is why the dihedral was introduced on the tailplane. Also, pilots found that when the 20 mm cannon was fired, the nose dipped, putting the pilot off his aim. Nevertheless, despite these issues, of course, the Beau squadrons proved its credentials as an excellent night fighter once the pilots got the hang of its nuances.


----------



## Glider (May 31, 2014)

nuuumannn said:


> Can you post sources that state the Defiant's pilot suffered a serious problem in this regard, then, Glider? Other radar equipped single-seat night fighters did not suffer too many issues in this respect. Like I said, not too much of an issue for existing British night fighter pilots.


As far as I am aware there were no other early war single seat radar equipped fighters that achieved any success. This radar was tried in the Hurricane without success and was also fitted to some Beaufighters but these were soon switched to the normal configuration. The latter is documented in the book Nightfighter. The only single seat radar equipped nightfighters that achieved any success were the USN radar equipped Hellcats and Corsairs and they used a very different radar with a very different display. The Defiant set up with that radar controlled by the pilot was a failure. Its notable that *all successful nightfighters during the war of all nations *used the two seat configuration as first installed in the Beaufighter. 


> Yep, in terms of timeline, you are right, the Beaufighter equipped with radar entered service before the Defiant and yes, it was intended on being the next service night fighter. My introduction of the Defiant into the argument was that the Beaufighter did not bring about a revolution in night fighter design or tactic and that Defiants


This bit I covered before 


> When you fly by night, you normally fly on instruments at any rate, although even under VMC at night, instrument flying is still essential. Flt Lt Roderick Chisholm, 604 Sqn: "If there were sufficient external guides - a skyline or moonlit ground - it was easy enough to fly steadily, as in daylight. But if these aids were absent, the night very dark and visibility poor, instrument flying in the early Beaufighter called for unceasing and most exacting concentration."
> 
> John Cunningham, who needs little introduction: "It was a long hard grind and very frustrating. It was a struggle to continue flying on instruments at night."
> 
> The Beaufighter suffered handling difficulties in its initial versions, this is why the dihedral was introduced on the tailplane. Also, pilots found that when the 20 mm cannon was fired, the nose dipped, putting the pilot off his aim. Nevertheless, despite these issues, of course, the Beau squadrons proved its credentials as an excellent night fighter once the pilots got the hang of its nuances.


You are correct the early versions were tricky in the climb or dive and at night that would have been more than a handful. As you mention this was fixed using the alteration to dihedral and after that the problem was clearly manageable as they served until the end of the war


----------



## nuuumannn (May 31, 2014)

> Its notable that all successful nightfighters during the war of all nations used the two seat configuration as first installed in the Beaufighter.



Blenheim, don't you mean? I don't dispute this and I never have. The Defiant was mentioned, and I'll say it again, because the Beaufighter was not the most successful night fighter in the time period between the end of 1940 and the end of 1941. Defiants gained the highest ratio of kills per intercepts of any British night fighter in that time, including Beaufighters, Hurricanes, Havocs and Blenheims.



> The Defiant set up with that radar controlled by the pilot was a failure.



It wasn't a major success, no, but under the circumstances, what option did the RAF have? Like I said, if the Defiant was taken out of NF duties, the RAF would have lost half of its NF force overnight. Only one kill is acredited to the Defiant based on a radar intercept.

So, Glider, this still does not put the Beaufighter in the category of a revolution, nor have you produced anything to justify your claim. Back to Square One then?


----------



## Glider (May 31, 2014)

I think we can draw this to a close. Blenheim's had three crew the pilot, gunner and radar op.

I believe the Beaufighter was a revolution as for the first time an aircraft had all the qualities that made a successful nightfighter, the first of its type and the one that formed the pattern for all successful nightfighters of the period, one that all the nations followed. It had radar, firepower, range and performance. You don't believe that makes it a revolution, despite the fact that all WW2 combatants followed the same path, then that is your choice.

Did the Defiant have success yes, but only because it was in service in numbers and despite it lacking radar, range and firepower. Technically it was no more advanced than a Bristol fighter in WW1 up against German Gotha (apart from having a radio) and as soon as production allowed, it was replaced as quickly as possible by the, yes, you've got it, the Beaufighter.


----------



## nuuumannn (May 31, 2014)

> I believe the Beaufighter for the first time had all the qualities that made a successful nightfighter, the first of its type and the one that formed the pattern for all successful nightfighters of the period, one that all the nations followed. It had radar, firepower, range and performance. You don't believe that makes it a revolution, despite the fact that all WW2 combatants followed the same path, then that is your choice.



Nope, not a revolution. Not just my choice. You misunderstand the term, I'm afraid. A revolution is great and sudden change in the status quo. The Beaufighter did not do this; it was an evolutionary step in the on going development of night fighters and it was superceded by a better aircraft, the Mosquito, which was, in turn superceded by the Meteor NF.11. Yes, it was everything you described - and more; I've been researching Coastal Command OTUs that operated the Beaufighter for years, specifically 132 OTU, so I'm well aware of what it was and what it was capable of. I've had the pleasure of sitting in the cockpit of one, watching one undergo restoration at close quarters also, I've talked to former Beaufighter crew members, so my exposure to this remarkable aircraft is not minimal, but it *did not *spark a revolution. HMS Dreadnought did, the atom bomb did, the A4 (V2) rocket did, but the Beaufighter did not. You need to understand the definition of revolution, Glider to realise this.



> Did the Defiant have success yes, but only because it was in service in numbers and despite it lacking radar, range and firepower. Technically it was no more advanced than a Bristol fighter in WW1 up against German Gotha (apart from having a radio) and as soon as production allowed, it was replaced as quickly as possible by the, yes, you've got it, the Beaufighter.



Put your dick away, Glider.


----------



## subkraft (Jun 1, 2014)

Revolutionary?

V2


redefined what an aircraft actually was.....


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jun 2, 2014)

subkraft said:


> Revolutionary?
> 
> V2
> 
> ...



A rocket?


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 2, 2014)

Even *IF* you consider an vehicle that does not breath air, does not use lifting surfaces re-acting with air and is unmanned an _aircraft_ the V-2 wasn't revolutionary, it was _evolutionary._ 
Wernher von Braun certainly gave credit to Robert Goddard for saving the Germans several years worth of work.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 2, 2014)

I can see where the V-2 (A4) _revolutionized_ the concept of military rocketry, but it was not in itself, revolutionary as rockets had been around since the ancient Chinese used rockets in warfare centuries earlier.

As far as the V-2 goes, it wasn't an "aircraft" like the Me163, Yokosuka MXY7, Bachem Ba349, Bereznyak-Isayev BI-1 and the Bell "X" series aircraft...

It was the ancestor of the ICBM.


----------



## nuuumannn (Jun 2, 2014)

The V2 can easily be considered revolutionary because of the impact it had on warfare, like what Dave said, the ICBM, also, Birtain, USA and the USSR tested and evolved A4 rockets post war, which had a big influence on their subsequent rocketry programmes. The guided rocket did change the face of warfare. Yes, Goddard was the first to bring about liquid fuelled rockets, but German experiments were conducted without influence from Goddard. The V2 took rockets into a more purposeful direction, its influence was enormous.


----------



## Koopernic (Jun 3, 2014)

The V2 (or to give it it's correct name: EMW A4 (Electro Mechanical Works Aggregate 4, the "V" stood for Vergeltungs = Retaliation) was revolutionary in that it was a guided and had a strategic range. This is quite different from inaccurate gunpowder rockets tipped with a spear that had no hope of improvement

What was revolutionary about it was the technology that was copied from it. 

Apart from the film cooled liquid propellant rocket motor there was the high speed electronic analog computer based auto pilot (the electronic analog computer was a German invention developed specifically for the V2, only electronics was fast enough, vibration resistant enough and able to handle the complex calculations, the engineer responsible Helmut Hoelzer ended up at NASA). Most influential was the PIGA accelerometer which provided the speed cutoff for the V2 and for the first time provided a 'strategic grade' instrument that made possible inertial guidance, the engineer responsible FK Mueller also ended up at NASA). PIGA's made it through to use in the MX missile where only errors in gravitational maps prevented accuracy to less than 18 inches, they were essentially perfect. The gas based fluid bearings developed (but not used) for the V2 also helped provide super accurate inertial navigation.

Inertial navigation revolutionized military navigation.

While the V2 wasn't an aircraft it did influence SAM design in the form of its derivative the "Wasserfall". 

Moreover a V2/A4 derivative the A4b was an aircraft in that it had wings, this offered the range to reach British targets should France fall but also allowed terminal guidance. Two were launched and one made a successful re-entry though telemetry showed that a wing burned off. (test V2's had a telemetry system called Minerva to provide pressure, temperature and heading information). The A4b was supposed to be guided by a fully inertial guidance system based on a stable platform called the SG-66 which carried three gyros and accelerometers had been tested to improve 'ordinary V2' accuracy. It was to receive a mid-course update from a radar system and then autonomously control itself during a long range glide and controlled dive on to target. If optionally controlled to impact after a terminal popup to clear the radar horizon it was expected to have an accuracy of 120-180m (same as oboe as similar radar tech)

The "Redstone" missile, developed by US Army engineers and ex German engineers and at the US Army Redstone arsenal at Huntsville Alabama didn't have wings but did use a detachable war head which maneuvered by using navigation information from the ST-92 Inertial Navigation System to an accuracy of 300 yards (270m). Winged missiles which after re-entry used Ramjets were developed (such as the Navajo) but their complexity wasn't justified for the advantages in size/range that they offered when compared to standard ballistic missiles. There was German "Navajo' style proposals to have a winged V2 which after a reconnaissance mission returned its pilot via a ram jet to home. The A4b didn't have a ramjet and was simply to glide at high subsonic speeds till it reached about 10000m when it would dive (technically it could be intercepted or shot at unless the trajectory/range was compromised)

The V2 wasn't revolutionary in that it had little effect on the second world war since the launch sites were soon over run, but it's technology greatly influenced the world of warfare thereafter. 

Moreover had the German Army managed to get the whole program move forward 1 year (operation beginning Sept 43 instead of Sept 44) would have completely revolutionized warfare and probably the outcome of the war if only to delay Overlord.

The 10,000th V2 produced was expected to take only 3750 hours to produce (same as a fighter aircraft) and use virtually no strategic materials mainly steel, plastic, ceramics. The 3rd Reich had 2 million people working in aviation production, design and development towards the end of the war. That is 80 million man hours per week assuming only 40 hours work) so potentially they could have produced 80,000,000/3750 = 20,000/week ie 80,000/month (the actual target was 5000/month). The fully guided versions which were to use boost phase beam riding or a more advanced gyro guidance system were supposed to guarantee the reentry point to within 500m (perhaps 1000m after tumbling through the atmosphere).

They were an expensive way of delivering explosives, especially over longer ranges, hence their limited use for Military such as the USAF which needed global reach to protect the free world but from the above statistics it can be seen that the Germans could have delivered a formidable amount of explosives, equal to the allied strategic bombing campaign albeit over shorter ranges, when they had no way to do so any other way. Any other development, such as jet bombers, would quickly be checked by the allies within say 6 months at most.

That makes the V2 revolutionary. It made every interceptor and radar obsolete.

(also the USAF forced the US Army to limit missile range to less than 100 miles which crushed their development)


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 3, 2014)

Koopernic said:


> The V2 (or to give it it's correct name: EMW A4 (Electro Mechanical Works Aggregate 4, the "V" stood for Vergeltungs = Retaliation) was revolutionary in that it was a guided and had a strategic range. This is quite different from inaccurate gunpowder rockets tipped with a spear that had no hope of improvement


The Congreve Rocket on the 19th century was a "gunpowder rocket on a stick" and yet that 19th century antique achieved successes that the A4 did not: the Congreve initiated capitulations of targeted enemies. (Except for the 25 hour barrage of Fort McHenry during the war of 1812...all that acheived was a national anthem for the U.S.)

The next step was Hale's process of spinning the rocket to reduce drag and improving accuracy and was employed during the U.S. civil war by U.S. Army and Navy against the Confederates. The Confederates, as it happens, used the Congreve type in return.

As far as being advanced enough to avoid interception, I can't think of any defensive system in place during WWII that would intercept inbound Nebelwerfer, Katyusha or even the RP3 rockets. 

So like I said above, the V-2 was not revolutionary in the sense of a rocket used in warfare, but it _*Revolutionized*_ rocketry with it's advanced designs.

It is the grandfather of the ICBM (and space launch vehicles) and all modern rocket systems point back to this technology.


----------



## Njaco (Jun 3, 2014)

I'd like to throw another into the mix.

Ju 52

Revolutionized the air transport aspect of aviation and as a platform for paratroops. But the transport efforts alone would qualify.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jun 3, 2014)

Ford tri-motor .... Admiral Byrd took one to Antarctica.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 3, 2014)

Not sure if the Ju52 would qualify, there were quite a number of other types that did the same thing before and since, an exceptional example would be the Dakota (DC-3), that created a huge range of variants and some are still in working service around the globe.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 3, 2014)

While the Ju 52 was the first aircraft to support a _sizable_ air lift of troops (in the Spanish Civil war) the British had been planning to airlift troops around the empire for quite some time. 





"In February 1923, in Iraq, Vernons of Nos. 45 and 70 Squadrons RAF airlifted nearly 500 troops to Kirkuk,[1] after the civilian area of that town had been overrun by Kurdish forces. This was the first ever[2] strategic airlift of troops." from Wiki.

replaced/supplemented by Vickers Victoria's in the mid/late 1920s. 





Capacity 24 troops. 

Many later British bomber/transports and bombers retained this "24 troop" capacity, at least in initial design stages (one reason the Short Sterling fuselage was so big)


----------



## nuuumannn (Jun 3, 2014)

> So like I said above, the V-2 was not revolutionary in the sense of a rocket used in warfare, but it Revolutionized rocketry with it's advanced designs.



You are right to a degree, Dave, the A4 was not the first rocket used in warfare, but its revolutionary impact (if you'll pardon the pun) was that, unlike the other weapons, the A4 did herald a new era in warfare; the guided missile with the sophistication of the A4 changed strategic military thinking throughout the world. None of the other weapons spawned reproductions in other countries that went on to make such enormous changes to the state of the art of warfare.



> the British had been planning to airlift troops around the empire for quite some time.



...and actually doing so. The British Empire was a global power and the RAF created an element of transportation of its soldiers on such a scale that did not exist in any other air force at that time.


----------



## Koopernic (Jun 3, 2014)

The all metal aircraft goes back almost to the dawn of Aviation. Most of the aluminium technology came out of German experience at building Zeppelins and I suspect the deterioration of wood quality in Germany and Austria during WW1.

Below left an all metal Junkers F.13 first flight 1920, it was a successful airliner. Junkers had an armored all metal ground attack aircraft in service during WW1. To the top is I think a junkers W31







Below an all metal Junkers G24 first flight 1924. The seaplane was used to rescue sailors from the crashed airship Italia.







Below the Junkers W33, this one is the "Bremen" which was the first aircraft to cross the Atlantic. (Lindbergh latter flew the other way), Dornier GS1 all metal fuselage but fabric wings first flight 1919







Dornier Delphin first flight 1920 all metal fuselage and wings, Dornier Super Wal 1930 carried 19 PAX







Rohrbach Ro 2 first flight 1919 all metal smooth skin, Messerschmitt M18 of 1926 (the successor the M20 crashed, killing Erhardt Milch best friend leading to life long enmity) also all metal. Willy Messershmitt designed an airfoil of excellent pitching characteristics for this aircraft.









The Germans seem to have worked out all metal smooth stressed skin production by 1926 at Dornier, Rohrbach, Messerschmitt and latter Junkers who used both smooth and stressed skin. Initially the skinning tended to be more non structural plate. Many of these commercial aircraft had to be built in Sweden, Holland or Italy to overcome the restrictions of the treaty of Versailles. Such needless restrictions which nobbled German industry and employment ironically helped Hitlers rise to power.

These metal aircraft showed themselves superior in bad weather and could continue flying when other aircraft of mixed construction or biplane types had to stop flying. The DC3 was to a degree a response to a Ford Trimotor crash (correction TWA 599 was a Fokker F.10 Trimotor) in which the wood glue had delaminated due to water ingress. This was an persistent issue and plagued even the Mosquito (in the tropics) 

Stressed skin construction was perfected in the USA in the Boeing Model 247 and Douglass DC1/DC2/DC3. In Germany Erhard Milch ramped up the Luftwaffe quickly by ordering massive production of an out of date technology type known as the Ju 52 airliner improvised as a bomber (even junkers knew how to build stressed skin by then), the Ju 52 as it could easily be produced rather than the smooth skin designs then coming into service. Right decision or wrong?

Arguably if the Ju 52 had of been replaced with something equal to the DC3 in equal numbers in Luftwaffe transport service it might have changed the course of the war. The inferior speed, range-versus-payload of the Ju 52 versus DC3 meant that the airlift into the 6th Army at Stalingrad failed while at the same time Rommel had to be supplied in North Africa. The Destruction of the Transport squadrons supplying North Africa was the result of the Allies knowing the exact flight plans, routes and schedules due to enigma decrypts but the efficiency and speed of the DC3 still would have reduced attrition enormously. If Rommel remains active in Africa then the Invasion of Sicily/Italy is delayed. The larger number of pilots required also stressed the supply of pilots who were drawn from training squadrons. Heavy transport losses were also experience over Holland, Crete (due to enigma decrypt), the Damnask pocket as well as Stalingrad and Nth Africa.

The DC3 was the right plane at the right time.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jun 3, 2014)

I believe Junkers designed and built an all metal fighter early in WW1, it was a monoplane.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 3, 2014)

> The DC3 was to a degree a response to a Ford Trimotor crash in which the wood glue had delaminated due to water ingress.



I Believe you are referring to a Fokker tri-motor crash. The Ford tri-motor was all metal. It may have borrowed rather heavily from Junkers in design and construction techniques (Ford had to pay royalties after two court cases when selling planes in Europe) but the first Ford tri-motor was flying in 1926.


----------



## Koopernic (Jun 3, 2014)

I stand corrected: TWA Flight 599 which crashed was a Fokker F.10 Trimotor not a Ford Trimotor. My apologies, I'll note my mistake in the original post. The DC2 entry in Wikipedia says the crash of TWA.599 spurred on all metal aircraft development. TWA of course was the first customer for the DC2(DC3 was slightly widened) and was thus motivated to move to metal construction.


----------



## Koopernic (Jun 3, 2014)

For VikkingBerserker:
The Junker J.I which is the first all aluminum aircraft to enter production in 1917. It is a sesquiplane (half biplane) and also had a steel armored bathtub for pilot and engine. It was for ground attack. Slightly latter was the 1917 Junkers J.7 and J.9 monoplane fighters.








The 1915 junkers J1 (1 not I) was steel tube and mainly steal skinning taken from transformer lamination sheet.

Note the thick wing on the J9. The Germans (mainly due to Ludwig Prandle at Goetingen university) had worked out that thick wings were more efficient than thin wings. The problem had been that scaling effects on wind tunnels had left everyone the incorrect impression those highly curved thin wings with a concave bottom were more efficient, thats true only for small scale models. The Germans were the first to realize this, this made it possible to make a main spar thick enough to make the unbraced monoplane possible. Due to these wings the Germans 1918 fighters would have been a very nasty surprise to the allies. The Fokker D.VII Biplane designed by Reinhold Platz which had to be specifically handed over to the allies was one as was his parasol D.VIII. After that wind tunnels started opperating in compressed air or were made ultra large to eliminate Reynolds effects.

Reliable american air cooled radials played a big part in developing aviation reputation for safety in the inter war years and combined with metal construction really were a revolution.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 3, 2014)

I think chris is not presenting the aircraft as inhernetly revolutionary from a design pov though it undoubtedly had some unique features. I think he is suggesting that its employment led to the universal adoption of a new concept, and i tend to agree with him, for much the same reasons that I earlier suggested the Swordfish to be a revolutionary aircraft. Neither the Swordfish, or the Ju52 were inhernetly revolutionary, yet the concepts they represented, and pushed forward were each world shattering. 

Neither of them introduced concept that were inherently new, but what they did do was to cement those concepts into military mainstream thinking, and thereby secure their position as revolutionary aircraft. Neither did the French revolutiuon or the American declaration of independance, yet in the same way as these political events captureed and immortalised a revolutionary concept, each of these aircraft made certain that the concepts for which they were employed became more or less permanent fixtures of modern warfare.

In the case of the Ju52, the revolutionary concept was in the way air transport, and its half brother, air assault can fundamentally affect the way that warfare, on a strategic level, can be affected by the logiustic support offered by a dedicated transport fleet. Invest in a transport fleet, and youve got the flexibility to completely change the way wars are fought.

For my beloved swordfish, the change was in the nature of naval warfare. Before the Swordfish, whilst there had been strident proponents of air power on the nature of naval warfare, nobody seriously thought that such aircraft could seriously challenge the supremacy of the capital ship. After the Swordfish (meaning its achievjmenbts 1940-1) nobody ever seriously challenged the supremacy of the aircraft (and more specifically, the aircraft carrier) as the supreme expression of naval power. nobody put to sea anymore confident that their battleships could ignore the possibility that they migt be hurt by carrier aircraft. Hitler, for example, forbade German capital ship deployment if there was a risk of a british carrier being present.


----------



## ohogain (Jun 4, 2014)

P-51 with its laminar flow wing.
Me-262


----------



## zoomar (Jun 18, 2014)

I think you need to make a distinction between revolutionary and radical. I can think of at least two modestly famous German planes that would be considered "radical" but not revolutionary - the Me 163 and Bv 141. The Komet was a radical and basically unsuccessful attempt at an extremely high performance rocket-powered interceptor, and the Bv 141 was a radical, but basically successful assymetrical obesrvation plane that died from prejudice as much as anything else. Other aircraft that could be considered radical include the Bv 40 glider interceptor, the Natter, the Northrop P-79 ramfighter and the Okha suicide bomb. Possibly the Do 335 and B-43 Mixmaster as well. None of these planes changed the course of aircraft design regardless of how innovative or advanced they might be.

A truly revolutionary airplane is the one that marks a major change (revolution) in design or tactics that "stick". In that context
I just don't get how somebody could claim the Me 262 was not revolutionary. Sure it was not the first jet plane or even the first jet fighter, but it was the first operational jet fighter and its speed advantage over conventional aircraft made it virtually uncatchable when operating at top speed. It heralded and symbolized the most revolutionary change in combat aviation since combat aviation began. This also goes for the Ar 234 (as the first jet bomber)as well, but in a way the concept of a light, high speed jet bomber was a dead end when jet fighter bombers arrived.

Since I am not considering weapons systems (missiles, radars, etc) but manned airplanes themselves, to be honest there are relatively few WW2-era planes that might truly qualify as revolutionary, but I can think of two...almost at different ends of the spectrum:

Polikarpov I-16 - the first operational fighter that combined all of the elements that came to characterize the classic WW2 fighter - cantilever monoplane with retractable landing gear and (in its initial versions) and enclosed cockpit canopy.

Boeing B-29 - the first true stratospheric long range bomber that formed the conceptual prototype for just about every US and (especially) Russian bomber designed and built into the 1960's

An honorable mention might go to the A6M Reisen as the first shipboard fighter capable of besting its land-based opponents, but since this was gained by weight-saving sleight-of-hand rather than a true advance in aviation technology, No.

Both the Bf 109 and Spitfire come close, since they added the one element that was missing from the I-16 - a high-performance altitude-rated in-line engine, but to me this is more an evolutionary improvement.


----------



## zoomar (Jun 18, 2014)

Ohogain, I hadn't though of the P-51. Not only the laminar flow wing, the Mustang heralded a revolution in WW2 aerial warfare as the first high-performance single engine fighter with the range and endurance to escort bombers all the way to their most distant targets and back. But in a way this was only a minor or ephemeral revolution, because within 10 years all piston-engined fighters were obsolete and bombers now flew half-way round the world to their targets


----------



## Shortround6 (Jun 18, 2014)

Or to show how _revolutionary_ the Mustang was one can look at the schemes tried out to replace it given that big bombers can almost always out range fighters.












Inflight refueling solved a _lot_ of problems


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 18, 2014)

How is the range of the Mustang revolutionary when the A6M had a longer range and escorted the equally long range Betty before the Mustang assumed the role of long range escort?


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 18, 2014)

zoomar said:


> ...
> Both the Bf 109 and Spitfire come close, since they added the one element that was missing from the I-16 - a high-performance altitude-rated in-line engine, but to me this is more an evolutionary improvement.



Good post. Just a nit-pick - when introduced, the I-16 also had the high performance altitude-rated engine. Radial it was, though.


----------



## zoomar (Jun 18, 2014)

GrauGeist said:


> How is the range of the Mustang revolutionary when the A6M had a longer range and escorted the equally long range Betty before the Mustang assumed the role of long range escort?



Damn good question and I'm not sure there is a good answer. I guess it might come down to the opponent (the Luftwaffe at the top of its game) vs obsolescent Chinese and Allied aircraft. The other thing to note about the Mustang is that it did not achieve its range by sacrificing protection like the A6M did. The Mustang was technologically less of a compromise and more of an actual advance. But your point is well taken. As I noted in my posts neither the Zero or the Mustang probably rank with the truly revolutionary WW2 planes.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jun 18, 2014)

Well, there's certain levels of "damned good ideas" out there, and the A6M and the Mustang both qualify near the top of the list.

To say that the Mustang is revolutionary in any way is probably going outside the realm of "damned good ideas". As a whole, it was the result of technical innovation and enjoyed successes based on the evolution of flight. However, the Mustang as a whole, didn't turn aviation design on it's ear, piston powered aircraft continued to evolve after the Mustang came and went.

The one truly revolutionary aspect of the Mustang, however, is the raised radiator intake that is a design in use on modern jet fighters to this day.


----------



## nuuumannn (Jun 19, 2014)

Sorry, neither the P-51 nor the Zero were revolutionary. Neither brought about a sudden change in the way fighter and bomber operations were carried out and neither had such influence that every other air force or operator changed their tactics to emulate what both aircraft could do. They were game changers, but not revolutionary.

For clairification, look at the battleship Dreadnought as suggested earlier and its example on its peers. Navies were further more classifed by whether they were equipped with dreadnoughts or not, every other capital warship was rendered obsolete by fleets of them. Can't say the same impact was held by either aeroplane types.

As for the Swordfish, Parsifal, no, the idea that battleships could be rendered obsolete did not arise with the Swordfish demonstrating an old concept that had been around since the Great War. Churchill as First Lord of the Admiralty _before_ WW1 broke out was having meetings in the Admiralty discussing that very thing using torpedoplanes. Sir Percy Scott was publicly a big critic of the dreadnought and claimed in a series of articles that were published in newspapers post war that the torpedoplane would signal the end of the dreadnought, so the idea that battlefleets were coming to an end because of torpedoplanes had been around for longer thn the Swordfish, also, every post WW1 aircraft carrier navy had fleets of them, if not to sink capital warships, then what? 

The revolution in the case of the Swordfish was the torpedo itself and even then its threat and far reaching influence goes right back to Victorian navies, who developed new classes of warship to introduce it into service, warships carried extra protection against them and it suddenly became a very real threat to the existence of surface fleets. At the outbreak of war the Royal Navy suffered bouts of what was described as 'Periscope-itis' - panic sightings of pericopes where there were none as a result of early successes of German U boats against naval vessels. The torpedo had considerable impact on naval fleets during the Great War - during Jutland it caused Jellicoe to turn away from the High Seas Fleet he was hotly pursuing at a cruicial moment, thus losing the initiative, and even before the war broke out, Fred T. Jane, him of the Jane's series of benchmark military libraries wrote questioning the future of dreadnoughts owing to the impact of the torpedo. Murray Sueter wrote that the impact of the torpedo, mine and submarine would render battlefleets obsolete in his previously mentioned book Airmen or Noahs.


----------

