# Most innovative aircraft of WW2 ?



## Readie (Sep 28, 2011)

Leaving the usual much discussed favourites aside, I have been looking through my books and wondered what was the most innovative piston engined aircraft of WW2...

May I start with this 
Do335 The Dornier Do335. The concept of a 'heavy fighter' is an interesting one'

I also offer this amazing design:
German flying wings

Over to you chaps
Cheers
John


----------



## michaelmaltby (Sep 28, 2011)

I think you have to divide the period into early and late. The Do335 would be late late, like the Me262.

*In 1939*, when war broke out, my call would be the Bell P-39 Airacobra. Mid-engine. Tricycle LG. Canon through spinner. Electrics for most actuated devices (as opposed to manual or hydraulic. etc.)

MM

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Sep 28, 2011)

The Sikorsky R 4 the first mass produced helicopter

Sikorsky R-4 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Sep 28, 2011)

P-43. 
Too bad they didn't mount V-1710s 'stead of Twin Wasp.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Lighthunmust (Sep 28, 2011)

michaelmaltby said:


> I think you have to divide the period into early and late. The Do335 would be late late, like the Me262.
> 
> *In 1939*, when war broke out, my call would be the Bell P-39 Airacobra. Mid-engine. Tricycle LG. Canon through spinner. Electrics for most actuated devices (as opposed to manual or hydraulic. etc.
> 
> MM



Have to agree with you Michael. The P-39 was very innovative. If looking right was what made right, the P-39 would have been World Champion. In fact as an air racer it was a champion.


----------



## gjs238 (Sep 28, 2011)

tomo pauk said:


> P-43.
> Too bad they didn't mount V-1710s 'stead of Twin Wasp.



Now that may be worthy of a separate thread.


----------



## davebender (Sep 28, 2011)

I agree.
Flettner-282 | Aircraft |




The first Fl 282 flew towards the end of 1941. The Fl-282 was more highly developed and flew more hours than any other German helicopter, and very extensive tests and measurements were made of all flight aspects. Most of this test work was done by Flettner's chief pilot, Hans E. Fuisting, who also undertook blind flying and trained many of the 50 pilots who learned to fly the Fl-282.

The Fl 282 served in the Baltic, North Aegean, and Mediterranean Seas. Plans to build thousands of Kolibris were abandoned after the Flettner factories were bombed by the Allies. Only three of these helicopters survived the war; the rest were destroyed to prevent capture. Two of the survivors went to the United States and Britain, the third to the Soviet Union.

Extremely maneuverable and very stable, even in gusty conditions, the machine could be flown hands-off in forward flight above 37 mph for indefinite periods. *By 1942, the Kolibri was operational on warships with suitable platforms*, escorting convoys in the Baltic, Mediterranean and Aegean Seas, and was thus effectively the first military helicopter in the world. 

The helicopter was found to be especially valuable at dawn and dusk when pilots of fixed wing aircraft did not have good visual contact in the poor light. During the day observation was especially favorable in the Mediterranean where the clear water allowed the helicopter crews to 'see' submarines as deep as 130 feet.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Alte Hase (Sep 29, 2011)

I think the He163- rocket power! Despite being a failure, it sure was an innovative power plant.


----------



## TheMustangRider (Sep 29, 2011)

How about the He-162 Salamander now that it has been brought to light in another thread.


----------



## pbfoot (Sep 29, 2011)

Might go with the IL2 , it was another 36yrs before they came up with A10

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## davebender (Sep 29, 2011)

If Austria-Hungary had not been carved up during November 1918 the PKZ 2 might have entered mass production during 1919 as a platform for artillery forward observers. 
Petroczy-Karman-Zurovec PKZ 2 helicopter - development history, photos, technical data


----------



## parsifal (Sep 29, 2011)

Japanese Ki 100 is probably worth having a think about. but Germany probably has this title with ease IMO


----------



## Tante Ju (Sep 29, 2011)

I think Me 262 and Il-2 Sturmovik showed really new concepts most.


----------



## Njaco (Sep 29, 2011)

> I have been looking through my books and wondered what was the most innovative *piston engined *aircraft of WW2...



hmmmm, Me 262, He 163...hmmmmm?


----------



## TheMustangRider (Sep 29, 2011)

Njaco said:


> hmmmm, Me 262, He 163...hmmmmm?



I certainly need glasses


----------



## davebender (Sep 29, 2011)

What new concepts? Germany employed armored ground attack aircraft during WWI. Germany also employed aircraft cannon such as the 20mm Becker during WWI. 

Junkers Aircraft of WW I




Junkers himself was not much engaged in the J4 design. He transfered the responsibility for this new aircraft to Dr. Mader, who was supported by Reuter, Steudel and Brandenburg, as well as by Madelung, who was sent to Dessau by the IDFLIEG. The principle ideas of the J3 design were transfered to the J4. The aircraft was designed with a Duralumin fuselage tube construction and the wings were constructed by corrugated Duralumin sheets and tubes. While the *pilot's and oberserver's seat area were protected by a chrome nickel steel plate*, the rear part of the fuselage tube construction was covered with textile coverings. The tail unit again was constructed in Duralumin structure.


----------



## norab (Sep 29, 2011)

Vought V-173


----------



## oldhat (Sep 30, 2011)

B-29. 

B-29 Superfortress changed the game of air power strategy up until this day. B-52 is a direct descendant of the B-29 and is still in service. For a basic heavy bomber concept that has had a 60+ year service life...well...what can you say?

For fighters, I'd say the Me-262. You can see the lines of the F-80/6 and MiG-15 if you squint at the Me-262.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Readie (Sep 30, 2011)

I was really looking at new concepts rather than developments of excisiting planes.
Yes, the B29 was good, but the heavy bomber had alreday been developed as a concept.

Wehrmacht: WWII German Aviation of Yesteryear

Focke Achgelis Fa 223

Messerschmitt Me 323

For examples.
Cheers
John


----------



## pbfoot (Sep 30, 2011)

davebender said:


> What new concepts? Germany employed armored ground attack aircraft during WWI. Germany also employed aircraft cannon such as the 20mm Becker during WWI.
> 
> Junkers Aircraft of WW I
> View attachment 179524
> ...


so it had a little armour plate do not see the comparison


----------



## davebender (Sep 30, 2011)

Let's approach this from another angle. Why do you think the Il-2 was an innovative design?


----------



## woljags (Sep 30, 2011)

i would have thought that the heinkel he 219 nightfighter would fit this thread to a tee


----------



## pbfoot (Sep 30, 2011)

davebender said:


> Let's approach this from another angle. Why do you think the Il-2 was an innovative design?


armoured engine, crew compartment, anf fuel tanks it was IMHOthe first sucessful purpose built ground attack aircraft definately light years ahead of the Lysander and HS 126


----------



## davebender (Sep 30, 2011)

Are you suggesting WWI era purpose built ground attack aircraft were unsuccessful? How about ground attack aircraft produced during the 1920s and 1930s?


----------



## pbfoot (Sep 30, 2011)

davebender said:


> Are you suggesting WWI era purpose built ground attack aircraft were unsuccessful? How about ground attack aircraft produced during the 1920s and 1930s?


Please suggest some alternatives , I have no qualms about eliminaating First War aircraft


----------



## davebender (Sep 30, 2011)

The Hs-123 comes to mind. It was highly regarded for CAS in Spain, Poland and Russia from December 1936 to mid 1944. General Wolfram von Richthofen liked the Hs-123 so much he asked if production could be restarted. That was during January 1943. 

The newer Il-2 was superior to the Hs-123 just as the newer A-1 Skyraider was superior to the Il-2. More engine power = more payload, greater endurance and more armor to protect critical systems. But these aircraft were all highly regarded for CAS.


----------



## buffnut453 (Sep 30, 2011)

pbfoot said:


> armoured engine, crew compartment, anf fuel tanks it was IMHOthe first sucessful purpose built ground attack aircraft definately light years ahead of the Lysander and HS 126



Errr...The Lysander and Hs126 were army cooperation and observation aircraft not ground attack.


----------



## pbfoot (Sep 30, 2011)

buffnut453 said:


> Errr...The Lysander and Hs126 were army cooperation and observation aircraft not ground attack.


But what is the difference between Army cooperation and ground attack . What was the purpose of those bombs on the Lysander if not ground attack


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 30, 2011)

Army Cooperation included short range reconnaissance, including aerial photos, Artillery spotting/direction, Communications (ferrying officers from place to place) or picking up messages. Westland Lysander


and any other job you can think of. Light bombing was just one more duty and a minor one.


----------



## davebender (Sep 30, 2011)

Army cooperation aircraft replaced artillery spotting balloons which were employed by the thousands during WWI. They are also used for short range photo recon. The limited payload is normally used for small marker rockets and bombs. Some of the more powerful versions such as the German Fw-189 had forward firing MGs or 20mm cannon for use against targets of opportunity. However it was no substitute for a Ju-87D or Hs-129 in attacking ground targets. Weapons payload was too small and the aircraft was not armored for protection against ground fire.


----------



## davebender (Sep 30, 2011)

Field Marshal Rommel didn't need no stinkin pilot. He liked to fly the Fi-156 himself while viewing the battlefield.

FI-156 "Storch"





June 22, 1944. PM Churchill visited the Normandy battlefield. He flew in a Fi-156 piloted by Air Vice Marshal Sir Harry Broadhurst.


----------



## pbfoot (Sep 30, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> Army Cooperation included short range reconnaissance, including aerial photos, Artillery spotting/direction, Communications (ferrying officers from place to place) or picking up messages. Westland Lysander
> 
> 
> and any other job you can think of. Light bombing was just one more duty and a minor one.


They sure blew that then , a Tiger Moth would be far better suited for that then a Lysander To me Army Coperation at that period of time was ground support Its like saying used car or pre enjoyed automobile.


----------



## Shortround6 (Sep 30, 2011)

Pre war army cooperation and 1942 army cooperation were not the same thing. just like many aspects of air warfare were not, in practice, what it was thought they would be in prewar theory/planning. 

The War-time Diaries of Edward Alexander Packe


----------



## CharlesBronson (Sep 30, 2011)

In my modest opinion the most inovative was the P-39, it introduced severl characteritics never seen before. Somebody could argue that the most innovative were the jets, probably but I still like the Airacobra.


----------



## pbfoot (Sep 30, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> Pre war army cooperation and 1942 army cooperation were not the same thing. just like many aspects of air warfare were not, in practice, what it was thought they would be in prewar theory/planning.
> 
> The War-time Diaries of Edward Alexander Packe


Recently was at the local library researching something and its funny about the propaganda articles that were published back then , there were several articles about about 110 Sqn later renumbered to 400 sqn RCAF . I assume that article from 41 could be viewed in the same vein.
and I also agree the P39 was an advanced aircraft and deserves consideration but then again she was local piece of work

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## davebender (Sep 30, 2011)

I agree. Mid engine. The Ferrari of WWII fighter aircraft.

Unfortunately the execution was poor. Fix the airframe handling issues, replace the Allison engine with a RR Merlin engine and replace the unreliable hub cannon with an MG151/20. Then we'd all be debating whether the 1942 P-39 was superior to the Spitfire Vb and Me-109F4. 8)


----------



## Readie (Oct 1, 2011)

Still seeking the most innovative plane chaps...

The one that broke the most new ground.

Operational success is not necessarily a parameter.

Cheers

John


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 1, 2011)

Broke new ground that lead to further development or was just different but didn't go anywhere?


----------



## Readie (Oct 1, 2011)

Hello SR6,
This is what I seek..

1. something new or different introduced. 
2. the act of innovating; introduction of new things or methods. 

I suppose you could say that the jet / rocket plane was an innovative solution, but I really wanted to try and find the piston engined most innovative aircraft of WW2.

So, the use of the Lysander was innovative landing SOE agents in occupied terrority but, I'm not convined that the plane itself was.

The carrier borne planes in the PTO were rapid developments of an excisiting idea. The Corsair etc took this to a new level in firepower, strenght etc.

Any ideas?

Cheers
John


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 1, 2011)

Try this;

Budd RB Conestoga - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It may not have been the first with several features and it may not have been a success but after the rotary wing aircraft most everything else is just variations. 6 engine transport vs 4 engine transport and so on.


----------



## Readie (Oct 1, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> Try this;
> 
> Budd RB Conestoga - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> It may not have been the first with several features and it may not have been a success but after the rotary wing aircraft most everything else is just variations. 6 engine transport vs 4 engine transport and so on.



Nice one. That is new to me. I can see why you choose the Budd too.
Cheers
John


----------



## Ratsel (Oct 1, 2011)

*The Caproni-Campini CC.2 *



On 27 August, 1940, the first prototype was tested for 10 minutes over the Taliedo airfield by the great pilot, Mario De Bernardi (Schneider Trophy winner of 1926, RT). On 16 September that same year it was flown for another 5 minutes, thus undergoing the acceptance flight test in order that the second prototype was upgraded. The latter made its maiden flight on 11 April, 1941. On 30 November, 1941, at 2:47 pm, Mario De Bernardi and Ing. Giovanni Pedace flew the second prototype on an official flight from the airport of Milan Linate and that of Rome Guidonia. After flying over Pisa, they landed at 4:58 pm after covering 475.554 km at the average speed of 217.147 km/h. According to the pilot's wish, the afterburner was never actuated in order to save fuel. 

The flight was a tremendous success, so much so that Mussolini personally complimented De Bernardi, and low-altitude flights were made over Rome, preceded by announcements repeatedly broadcast by radio. The event took the world by storm, and no less than 33 countries congratulated the Italian government. These flights were recognized by the F.A.I. (Fédération Aéronautique Internationale) to be the first ever made by a jet. Truth to tell, the plan conceived by the German, Hans von Ohain, and the Heinkel group, whereby the extraordinary He.178 aircraft was flown precisely a year before, on 27th August, 1939, had been kept secret.







The engine designed by Ing. Campini had many other drawbacks. That is, it was heavy and bulky, the type of engine used to drive the compressor was rather complex, the efficiency of the burner was low - although it came close to the best possible performance of the day -, and maximum power was considerably limited. This is why the German design - which came into use when World War II was drawing to an end, is the forerunner of the modern jet engines, while the Italian version has a purely historical value 

Ducted fan with three rotors, of which two are rotating, and one is fixed (a "fixed rotor" is a contradiction within itself, RT); burners provide 700 kg thrust; engine of the compressor, 900 hp Isotta Fraschini L. 121/R.C. 40; length, 12.10 m; height, 4.70 m; span, 14.63 m; wing area, 36 sq m; weight empty, 3,640 kg; total weight, 4,217 kg; useful load, 577 kg; maximum speed at an altitude of 3,000 m without burner, 325 km/h; maximum speed at an altitude of 3,000 m with burner, 359.5 km/h; climb, 1,000 m in 9 min. (with burner); maximum altitude attained in the course of acceptance flight tests, 4,000 m.






The Engine of the CC-2 Aircraft
Like a gun, which 'reacts' with a quick backward movement (i.e. the recoil) when a projectile is shot forward at high speed, a jet engine derives its thrust by reaction to its high-speed ejection of combustion products, and by the expansion of heated air, which is pushed out at a higher speed than when the air is drawn in. (After all, ordinary propellers work in a similar way. They accelerate backwards the air mass that moves through their rotating blades.) These introductory remarks are meant to help our visitors gain an insight into the workings of Ing. Campini's thermojet. It is, in effect, to be considered more as a hybrid than as a jet engine proper. An internal combustion engine characterized by reciprocating motion of pistons in its cylinder - in this case, a 900 hp Isotta Fraschini L. 121/R.C. 40 engine - drove a compressor incorporating 2 ducted propellers and a propeller designed to direct the flow and minimize the breakdown of the smooth airflow. A ring of injectors (i.e. the burners) introduced kerosine, whose combustion increased the volume of the thermojet and the exhaust velocity.


----------



## Lighthunmust (Oct 1, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> Try this;
> 
> Budd RB Conestoga - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> It may not have been the first with several features and it may not have been a success but after the rotary wing aircraft most everything else is just variations. 6 engine transport vs 4 engine transport and so on.


 


Readie said:


> Nice one. That is new to me. I can see why you choose the Budd too.
> Cheers
> John



Great choice Shortround 6! I can sadly report that as of last year the condition of the Conestoga remains the same as the Wikipedia photo indicates. This aircraft has been at Pima for decades and I doubt it will be restored. Last year I returned to Pima for the first time in 20 years. The improvements were spectacular. I encourage all members to visit as it is well worth the 2 hour drive from Phoenix.


----------



## davebender (Oct 1, 2011)

WWII was the end of the piston engine military aircraft era. Not many aircraft ideas which hadn't already been tried (in cruder form) during WWI. Even the helicopter was a WWI invention.

We could include WWII aircraft weapons systems. A few come to mind.
- Folding fin rocket. Introduced during the final year of the war. Newer versions are still a main weapon for attack helicopters.
- Cluster bombs. Introduced at the beginning of WWII and still in widespread use.
- Guided air to surface weapons such as the Hs-293 and Fritz X.


----------



## evangilder (Oct 1, 2011)

Jet engines, Rockets, RADAR for not only detection, but targeting, guided weapons, ejection seats, etc. There were so many advances during WWII, it's hard to pick just one. The B-29 was the most advanced bomber of it's time with pressurized compartments and remote turrets.


----------



## Readie (Oct 1, 2011)

Ratsel said:


> *The Caproni-Campini CC.2 *
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Thank you for posting this Mr Ratsel. The Italians were very clever engineers. Hardly surprising given the innovations in their car / racing industry.
Cheers
John


----------



## Readie (Oct 1, 2011)

Here is my contender for the title.
BBC - h2g2 - de Havilland Mosquito - World War II Aircraft

The DH Mosquito. 

Why? because it was built with wood !

Cheers
John


----------



## tyrodtom (Oct 1, 2011)

What is inovative about building a aircraft out of wood ? It certainly had been done before. The plywood- balsa wood sandwich might have been a inovation, might have been one of it's flaws too. Where did Britain get balsa wood from ?


----------



## Readie (Oct 1, 2011)

tyrodtom said:


> What is inovative about building a aircraft out of wood ? It certainly had been done before. The plywood- balsa wood sandwich might have been a inovation, might have been one of it's flaws too. Where did Britain get balsa wood from ?




http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafbramptonwy...files/9818FCBF_1143_EC82_2ED93F5D8312A0C6.pdf


The genius of the aircraft's construction lay in the innovative and somewhat unorthodox use of seemingly commonplace materials and techniques. 
The bulk of the Mosquito was made of plywood. Stronger and lighter than most grades of plywood, this special plywood was produced by a 
combination of 3/8" sheets of Ecuadorean balsawood sandwiched between sheets of Canadian birch plywood. Like a deck of cards, sheets of wood 
alternated with sheets of a special casein-based (Later formaldehyde) wood glue. 
Forming the fuselage was done in concrete moulds. Left and right sides of the fuselage were fitted with bulkheads and structural members 
separately while the glue cured. Reinforcing was done with hundreds of small brass wood screws. This arrangement greatly simplified the 
installation of hydraulic lines and other fittings, as the two halves of the fuselage were open for easy access by workers. The two halves of the 
fuselage were then glued and bolted together, and covered with doped Madapolam fabric.
The wings were also made of wood. To increase strength, the wings were made as one single assembly, onto which the fuselage, once both halves 
had been mated, was lowered and attached.

Cheers
John


----------



## post76 (Oct 1, 2011)

Hard to call, an airplane with wings and an engine would not be all that unique or innovative.

I found electric propellers, turbo supercharging, and water injection to be the more innovative components of some aircraft. 

Usually, the more innovative aircraft never flew in the war.

See XP-63H, not so much the airplane, but the engine design.


----------



## The Basket (Oct 1, 2011)

Blohm Voss BV141 deserves a mention.
Fieseler Fi 156 Storch
Dornier Do 335
But the winner is the Boeing B-29....it is the winner...by a country mile.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Oct 1, 2011)

I'll say either the Focke-Achgelis Fa 223 Drache or the Flettner Fl 282 Kolibri. I think they were the first true helicopters and showed the world the potential they had.


----------



## davebender (Oct 1, 2011)

So was the 1904 Wright Flyer.


----------



## gjs238 (Oct 1, 2011)

Readie said:


> Here is my contender for the title.
> BBC - h2g2 - de Havilland Mosquito - World War II Aircraft
> 
> The DH Mosquito.
> ...


Hmmm, are you sure it's the wood, and not another aspect of this aircraft that makes you suggest it?


----------



## wuzak (Oct 1, 2011)

I'd suggest that the composite construction of the Mosquito made it moe innovative than most otehr wood aircraft. Or that some actually though to build an unarmed bomber.


----------



## Lighthunmust (Oct 1, 2011)

I think the Mossie is innovative for more than its construction. I was innovative in being unlike accepted practice it did not have defensive guns. It relied on speed, cunning, and stealth for defense. Does this sound like something that may have set a precedent for emphasis in many post-war bomber designs?


----------



## michaelmaltby (Oct 1, 2011)

The Mossie could be built (and was) by Britain's *furniture *industry - that's what's innovative about it and its value-added to the British war effort. 

MM


----------



## gjs238 (Oct 1, 2011)

The Mosquito may have been the best Schnellbomber, but it certainly didn't pioneer the concept.


----------



## barney (Oct 1, 2011)

The B-29 because it was pressurized and round. A cylinder is the strongest way to built a pressurized aircraft. The Dreamliner, just now going into service, is round.


----------



## Lighthunmust (Oct 1, 2011)

gjs238 said:


> The Mosquito may have been the best Schnellbomber, but it certainly didn't pioneer the concept.



What _unarmed_ schnellbomber would you be referring too as the pioneer?


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 1, 2011)

barney said:


> The B-29 because it was pressurized and round. A cylinder is the strongest way to built a pressurized aircraft. The Dreamliner, just now going into service, is round.



The Boeing 307 Stratoliner was round. It predated the B-29


----------



## barney (Oct 1, 2011)

Yeah, the C-75, it was used in the war - sorta.  Anyway, a very pretty bird.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 2, 2011)

Well, if you already had a pressure cabin that worked good enough for passengers it isn't that much of a stretch to to make smaller cabins with a bit more pressure for bomber crews.


----------



## Lighthunmust (Oct 2, 2011)

So would I be correct in assuming the B-29 was not very innovative because a tubular fuselage and pressurization was nothing new, remote control of guns was nothing new, and having a bomb load greater than the B-17s and B-24s was nothing new? What was innovative in the design of the B-29? Was it only innovative for putting all the best technology in a single package and succeeding at what is was designed to do?


----------



## Readie (Oct 2, 2011)

gjs238 said:


> Hmmm, are you sure it's the wood, and not another aspect of this aircraft that makes you suggest it?



Actually no...I have tried not to mention the two things I usually do and thus far have succeeded.


----------



## Readie (Oct 2, 2011)

During much of the war the Mosquito was one of the fastest aircraft in the sky on either side, and one of the most manoeuvrable - in mock combats it could climb faster and turn more quickly than a Spitfire. The Mosquito inspired admiration from all quarters


"In 1940 I could at least fly as far as Glasgow in most of my aircraft, but not now! It makes me furious when I see the Mosquito. I turn green and yellow with envy.

The British, who can afford aluminium better than we can, knock together a beautiful wooden aircraft that every piano factory over there is
building, and they give it a speed which they have now increased yet again. What do you make of that?
There is nothing the British do not have. They have the geniuses and we have the nincompoops. After the war is over I'm going to buy a British
radio set - then at least I'll own something that has always worked."

Hermann Göring, January 1943

Apart from the 'yellow with envy' ( was something lost in the translation?) this is praise indeed.

The Mosquito inspired a German imitation, the Focke Wulf Ta 154 Moskito, which, like the original, was constructed of wood.

Cheers
John


----------



## Siegfried (Oct 2, 2011)

BV-141. It used the prop circulation and torque to make an asymmetrical aircraft fly symmetrically.
Also the Arado 232 which could takeoff in 200 meters and taxi over huge ditches due to its
22 sets of wheels. Might have made a difference in the Stalingrad supply missions had it been
available in more numbers.


----------



## Readie (Oct 2, 2011)

That's innovation for sure.

I would vote the Germans as the greatest innovators in the aircraft industry around WW2.

Cheers
John


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 2, 2011)

Is it innovation if nobody uses the idea/technique again?


----------



## Readie (Oct 2, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> Is it innovation if nobody uses the idea/technique again?



Hello SR6,
At the risk of appearing pedantic, I would mildly suggest that if no one thought of the idea in the first place then it couldn't be used again.
Cheers
John


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 2, 2011)

Sorry, just trying to get at what was innovation and what was just novel. Or perhaps a novelty? An idea may be new and it may work but if it is never used again is it "innovation"

"At the risk of appearing pedantic" from wiki " Innovation differs from invention or renovation in that innovation generally signifies a substantial positive change compared to incremental changes."


----------



## Readie (Oct 2, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> Sorry, just trying to get at what was innovation and what was just novel. Or perhaps a novelty? An idea may be new and it may work but if it is never used again is it "innovation"
> 
> "At the risk of appearing pedantic" from wiki " Innovation differs from invention or renovation in that innovation generally signifies a substantial positive change compared to incremental changes."



Touche.
Not a novelty, a new idea? , a new way of doing something?, imagination? 

So, the first power operated turret in a bomber would be an innovation at the time. any further progress with turrets would be developmental.

Cheers
John


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 2, 2011)

Yes, maybe remote turrets or the application of fire control computers to remote turrets would be innovation but going from 1 gun to 2 or 4 in power turret would not. Or going from 1 power turret to 3. 
Constant speed propellers were an innovation but going from 3 blades to 4 was not (and not new either).
The BV 141 was certainly novel, it was new, it was inventive, it did work but it was never copied/used again on any plane built in any numbers at all. It had about zero impact on the progress of aviation. Maybe it did deserve better? But it didn't "innovate" any changes did it?


----------



## michaelmaltby (Oct 2, 2011)

".... I would vote the Germans as the greatest innovators in the aircraft industry around WW2."

That's perhaps the subject of a new thread ... 

Nazi Germany had an *energy* about it - for all its other glittering horrors - and Germany (the people) had the scientific and industrial talent - and Der Feuher and The Party gave that talent focus and opportunities.

I would argue that the same innovativeness was present in the German WW1 aircraft industry (including the Dutchman Folker).

MM


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 2, 2011)

I would not be so sure about that. In the late 30s the people of many nations were "airminded" to an extent that is hard to believe now. Airplanes and air travel/warplanes were sort of like computers and the internet today. It was the "future" and governments and private organizations spent money to develop it in many ways. Some of which seem quite naive or down right silly today. The plane in every garage idea for one. Governments and publishing companies sponsored contests for cheap, easy to fly aircraft. Most airlines operated on government subsidies, in addition to the governments providing the airports. Any small country with any industrial base at all was trying to build it's own aircraft. Pilots that set records got parades in capitol cities and invited to state dinners. They were celebrities right up there with movie stars. 
See: Douglas Corrigan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Aviation was seen as the business to be in by many up and coming inventors, engineers and entrepreneurs no matter what country they were in.


----------



## krieghund (Oct 2, 2011)

Lighthunmust said:


> Have to agree with you Michael. The P-39 was very innovative. If looking right was what made right, the P-39 would have been World Champion. In fact as an air racer it was a champion.



I think the He100 was very innovative....how to reduce the drag for an inline engine without a radiator......at the same time take the world airspeed record (albeit with a modified wing) then produce a production fighter only to have politics get in the way..


----------



## Lighthunmust (Oct 2, 2011)

michaelmaltby said:


> ".... Der Feuher and The Party gave that talent focus and opportunities.
> 
> MM



I disagree. From what I understand about the management of talent by the little corporal and his cronies is that they were more of a wrong than right. Much of the talent was not focused and resulted in wasted on the following: pursuing perfection (which is the enemy of good enough) so you never have sufficient quantity, allowing numerous manufactures to make similar equipment that results in incredible logistic problems, engaged in more management by cronyism than their enemies, and channeling resources into weapons projects that while innovative were impractical and resulted in limiting resources to weapons that were actually used to win the war. This is not providing focus, it is hubris. This is not providing opportunities, it is irresponsible indulgence in fantasy.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Oct 2, 2011)

".... Much of the talent was not focused and resulted in wasted on the following"

I don't disagree. But nonetheless hair-brained, innovative Nazis like the Horten Brothers got funded ... Politics .. Nazi Politics coupled with a national preoccupation with "perfection" got in the way. In contrast - no Manhattan Project would be possible under Nazi conditions. Yet the *resources* that were committed to syn-oil production at prices 4-5 times world crude pb price in pursuit of German "self-sufficiency" - were enormous and focused and well-executed. 

But great aircraft innovation has emerged from Germany whatever the rationale.

MM


----------



## Lighthunmust (Oct 2, 2011)

michaelmaltby said:


> But great aircraft innovation has emerged from Germany whatever the rationale.
> MM



I agree. See #4 below.


----------



## Lighthunmust (Oct 2, 2011)

krieghund said:


> I think the He100 was very innovative....how to reduce the drag for an inline engine without a radiator......at the same time take the world airspeed record (albeit with a modified wing) then produce a production fighter only to have politics get in the way..



Thank goodness politics did get in the way. If it didn't we would all be denied the pleasure of innumerable Bf109 versus everything arguments and the continuing mystery of the Bf109 landing gear design contribution to losses.

I may be may be wrong but I think the generic layout of most current and proposed fighters is something like the following: cockpit in front of the engine, tricycle gear, primary gun armament in fuselage, electricity flowing through wires to operate controls, and canopy with 360 degree view. I think most of us know which innovative piston engine WW2 fighter had all of these characteristics on September 1, 1939.


----------



## krieghund (Oct 2, 2011)

Lighthunmust said:


> I disagree. From what I understand about the management of talent by the little corporal and his cronies is that they were more of a wrong than right. Much of the talent was not focused and resulted in wasted on the following: pursuing perfection (which is the enemy of good enough) so you never have sufficient quantity, allowing numerous manufactures to make similar equipment that results in incredible logistic problems, engaged in more management by cronyism than their enemies, and channeling resources into weapons projects that while innovative were impractical and resulted in limiting resources to weapons that were actually used to win the war. This is not providing focus, it is hubris. This is not providing opportunities, it is irresponsible indulgence in fantasy.



SHACK!!! and thank God for that.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 2, 2011)

I would say that the German aerospace industry was very innovative, but it Hitler and his "yes men" kept it from being effective.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 2, 2011)

Lighthunmust said:


> I may be may be wrong but I think the generic layout of most current and proposed fighters is something like the following: cockpit in front of the engine, tricycle gear, primary gun armament in fuselage, electricity flowing through wires to operate controls, and canopy with 360 degree view. I think most of us know which innovative piston engine WW2 fighter had all of these characteristics on September 1, 1939.



cockpit in front of engine doesn't really become practical until the propeller goes away. Most jet fighter armament (guns) could not be synchronized to fire through a propeller, Hispano, revolver cannon, rotary cannon etc. Tricycle gear was on the wa in any case but on piston fighters it required heavier (longer) landing gear to keep it clear of the ground. 
Jet fighters use engine in the back to keep thrust losses from long jet pipe to a minimum and to avoid heat problems from long ,hot jet pipe in fuselage or exhausting underneath fuselage. 

there were a number of aircraft in WW I that had the engine behind the pilot, primary gun armament in fuselage. and 360 degree view (at least as much as the upper wing allowed) some may have had nose gear. 4 out of 5? no electricity.


----------



## Lighthunmust (Oct 2, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> cockpit in front of engine doesn't really become practical until the propeller goes away. Most jet fighter armament (guns) could not be synchronized to fire through a propeller, Hispano, revolver cannon, rotary cannon etc. Tricycle gear was on the wa in any case but on piston fighters it required heavier (longer) landing gear to keep it clear of the ground.
> Jet fighters use engine in the back to keep thrust losses from long jet pipe to a minimum and to avoid heat problems from long ,hot jet pipe in fuselage or exhausting underneath fuselage.
> 
> 
> ...



All true, but that does not change the fact that the layout of the P-39 is what became the norm. Use of electricity is a BIG difference and the norm now. By the way, not too many WW1 aircraft with 360 degree view _canopies._


----------



## gjs238 (Oct 2, 2011)

Might the Saab 21 be a contender?


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 2, 2011)

Lighthunmust said:


> All true, but that does not change the fact that the layout of the P-39 is what became the norm. Use of electricity is a BIG difference and the norm now. By the way, not too many WW1 aircraft with 360 degree view _canopies._



But they didn't have to worry about cleaning the canopy either


----------



## davebender (Oct 2, 2011)

> Mosquito may have been the best Schnellbomber, but it certainly didn't pioneer the concept.


1937. Design work begins on the Me-210 light bomber.
The Me-210C and Me-410A which entered service during 1943 are fast light bombers. 

July 1939. RLM issues the Bomber B specification.
…..Speed of 600kph (375mph)
…..Bomb load of 4,000kg
…..Pressurized cabin.
…..Remote control armament.
The Ju-288 could have been mass produced by 1944 resulting in a fast medium/heavy bomber.

There were probably also designers in the USA, Japan and Italy working on fast bomber designs during the late 1930s.

The Mosquito design dates to December 1939 / January 1940. That's when de Havilland and the RAF worked out requirements during several meetings.


----------



## Readie (Oct 2, 2011)

krieghund said:


> I think the He100 was very innovative....how to reduce the drag for an inline engine without a radiator......at the same time take the world airspeed record (albeit with a modified wing) then produce a production fighter only to have politics get in the way..



The HE100 was full of ideas that the Spitfire shared or vice versa. I'm not going to sucked into an argument either chaps
Cheers
John


----------



## Readie (Oct 2, 2011)

davebender said:


> 1937. Design work begins on the Me-210 light bomber.
> The Me-210C and Me-410A which entered service during 1943 are fast light bombers.
> 
> July 1939. RLM issues the Bomber B specification.
> ...



Hello Dave, the Mosquito was more innovative as it was made from wood.The rest is history.
Cheers
John


----------



## michaelmaltby (Oct 2, 2011)

".... Might the Saab 21 be a contender?"

Most defiantly ... bailing out is a little rough without an ejection seat tho.

"... I think most of us know which innovative piston engine WW2 fighter had all of these characteristics on September 1, 1939."


----------



## Readie (Oct 2, 2011)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I would say that the German aerospace industry was very innovative, but it Hitler and his "yes men" kept it from being effective.



Indeed Chris, we have looked at a few truly innovative aircraft and the German engineers designed some novel solutions that we can still marvel at in 2011.
Without going too far down the political road I would also say that if the German engineers and Generals had run WW2 we may have been in a spot of bother. Hitlet et al were 'on our side' in a way as they royally ****** the German war effort.

Cheers
John


----------



## Readie (Oct 2, 2011)

michaelmaltby said:


> ".... I would vote the Germans as the greatest innovators in the aircraft industry around WW2."
> 
> That's perhaps the subject of a new thread ...
> 
> ...



WW1? I agree.

Germany has always had an energy, sometimes a bit misdirected but, an energy nevertheless.
Britain has a well practised languid arrogance that has taken centuries and an Empire to perfect.

I believe that between our two nations we have innovated more new design solutions in WW2 than any other nation.
Some where blind alleys , some weren't.

Cheers
John


----------



## davebender (Oct 2, 2011)

I think you have a wood fetish.  

The Mosquito was a great aircraft because it performed well at the time it entered service.


----------



## Readie (Oct 2, 2011)

davebender said:


> I think you have a wood fetish.
> 
> The Mosquito was a great aircraft because it performed well at the time it entered service.



Hello Dave, haha...
you could also truly say that the Mossie performed well throughout WW2.


----------



## Lighthunmust (Oct 2, 2011)

gjs238 said:


> Might the Saab 21 be a contender?




Perhaps, but no electrical controls, and substituting a turbojet for the DB605 doesn't make it similar in lay-out to current and proposed fighters. 



michaelmaltby said:


> ".... Might the Saab 21 be a contender?"
> 
> Most defiantly ... bailing out is a little rough without an ejection seat tho.
> 
> "... I think most of us know which innovative piston engine WW2 fighter had all of these characteristics on September 1, 1939."



The Saab 21 wins second place for a fighter going operational with an ejection seat.


----------



## Lighthunmust (Oct 2, 2011)

davebender said:


> I think you have a wood fetish.
> 
> The Mosquito was a great aircraft because it performed well at the time it entered service.




Having wood is a good thing. Something you appreciate the older you get.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 2, 2011)

Lighthunmust said:


> Perhaps, but no electrical controls, and substituting a turbojet for the DB605 doesn't make it similar in lay-out to current and proposed fighters.



But the cockpit was in front of the engine


----------



## gjs238 (Oct 2, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> But the cockpit was in front of the engine


Not only was the cockpit in front of the engine, it was out in front of the wing.


----------



## Readie (Oct 2, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> But the cockpit was in front of the engine



Even the Swedes had to concede that design objective. Unless you fly by periscope....galenskap
Cheers
John


----------



## krieghund (Oct 2, 2011)

Readie said:


> The HE100 was full of ideas that the Spitfire shared or vice versa. I'm not going to sucked into an argument either chaps
> Cheers
> John



Ok I'll bite, what ideas would those be? Also just to throw another grenade out there, why did the Spitfire design team have a He-70 to play with while they were working up the spitfire?


----------



## Readie (Oct 2, 2011)

krieghund said:


> Ok I'll bite, what ideas would those be? Also just to throw another grenade out there, why did the Spitfire design team have a He-70 to play with while they were working up the spitfire?



Its an interesting time. To save a lot of typing have a look at the first post in my 'Spitfire. My journey thread'.
Cheers
John


----------



## Njaco (Oct 2, 2011)

Since the definition of 'innovative' is using or showing new methods, ideas, etc ......

The Bv 141


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 2, 2011)

krieghund said:


> Ok I'll bite, what ideas would those be? Also just to throw another grenade out there, why did the Spitfire design team have a He-70 to play with while they were working up the spitfire?



did the Spitfire team have the He-70 or did Rolls-Royce?

Multi-seat aircraft make great testbeds for new engines. Lots of room of test instruments and observers. 

He-70 was built as a German reply to the Lockheed Orion.


----------



## krieghund (Oct 2, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> did the Spitfire team have the He-70 or did Rolls-Royce?
> 
> Multi-seat aircraft make great testbeds for new engines. Lots of room of test instruments and observers.
> 
> He-70 was built as a German reply to the Lockheed Orion.



Give that man a cigar!! Yeap used for exhaust nozzles and radiator tests by RR.


----------



## krieghund (Oct 2, 2011)

Readie said:


> Its an interesting time. To save a lot of typing have a look at the first post in my 'Spitfire. My journey thread'.
> Cheers
> John



Ok I looked at all six pages but no references to the He-100


----------



## Readie (Oct 2, 2011)

Dreadfully sorry, I meant the HE 70 and the wing design...
Getting my Heinkels mixed up.
Cheers
John


----------



## wuzak (Oct 2, 2011)

davebender said:


> 1937. Design work begins on the Me-210 light bomber.
> The Me-210C and Me-410A which entered service during 1943 are fast light bombers.
> 
> July 1939. RLM issues the Bomber B specification.
> ...



Was the Me210 a light bomber or a heavy fighter to replace the Bf110?

Volkert (Handley Page) proposed the unarmed high speed bomber in 1937.


----------



## woljags (Oct 4, 2011)

this thread could go on and on with no real winners found although it does make interesting reading,how about this choice of aircraft that could fit the topic

fokker eindover [sorry about the spelling] from ww1,1st single winged fighter with forward firing guns
staaken e.4/20 monoplane the 1st all metal 4 engined airliner from 1920
from ww2 
he219 owl (built as a nightfighter]
mozzie [apart from being a true design classic that could do anything that was asked of it well, by construction properly had stealth technology 
b17 (designed to go to its target with no fighter escort]
b29( the best bomber in ww2 bar none for design,the layout can still be seen in the b52's of today]
me262( 1st operational jet fighter]
not forgetting the large Gigants transports germany had the fore runner of todays large cargo planes
i could go on but i think we were trying to keep it up to the end of ww2


----------



## Readie (Oct 4, 2011)

b29 (the best bomber in ww2 bar none....)
Umm, that's a debate in itself 

its difficult to separate the original innovative and the subsequent developments, your example of the Fokker Eindecker and its machine guns is a good example.
Aviation in World War I - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The idea of synchronisation pre-dates the Fokker scourge.

Back to the thread.
I have several candidates in mind but, cannot decide which to put forward yet 

Cheers
John


----------



## woljags (Oct 4, 2011)

how does anybody feel about the gloster gladiator with its enclosed canopy,i know its an outdated design being a by-plane but enclosing the cockpit was a new idea


----------



## Readie (Oct 4, 2011)

woljags said:


> how does anybody feel about the gloster gladiator with its enclosed canopy,i know its an outdated design being a by-plane but enclosing the cockpit was a new idea



It was a good idea and the Gladiator acquitted itself with honour in WW2.
A candidate.
Cheers
John


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 4, 2011)

See; Sage Type 2 - fighter


----------



## Readie (Oct 4, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> See; Sage Type 2 - fighter



A challenge to bail out of eh SR6 !


----------



## woljags (Oct 4, 2011)

so what do you have in mind John as your selection


----------



## drgondog (Oct 4, 2011)

I would go with the Horten, the B-29 and perhaps the Mossie.. but the jets including the Me 262 the Metoer and the P-80 have to be shoe horned in also.


----------



## wuzak (Oct 4, 2011)

drgondog said:


> I would go with the Horten, the B-29 and perhaps the Mossie.. but the jets including the Me 262 the Metoer and the P-80 have to be shoe horned in also.



Drgondog,

The original question was the most innovative _piston_ engined aircraft. So the Horten, Me 262, Meteor and P-80 are out.

The B-29 brought a lot of new technologies together, probably the most integrated weapons sytem of the war. 
The Mossie brought a new train of bomber thought to fruition (ie the unarmed high speed bomber).

Both good choices.


----------



## parsifal (Oct 4, 2011)

woljags said:


> this thread could go on and on with no real winners found although it does make interesting reading,how about this choice of aircraft that could fit the topic
> 
> me262( 1st operational jet fighter]



A technicality, I will freely admit, but the Me 262 was not the worlds first operational jet fighter. It was the worlds first operational jet aircraft, but hitler forbade its designation as a fighter until the following october. by that time the worlds operational jet fighter, the meteors of 616 sqn, had been operational for some three months

This is an extract from something that I found, to try and explain....

"_April 1944 - during a discussion about the Me-262, Hitler suddenly realizes that it is produced only in the original fighter version, not in "his" bomber version. Hitler is furious. He commands to shift all production to a bomber version. He forbids to even refer to the aircraft as an interceptor or even as a fighter-bomber, and the military responsibilities related to the Me-262 are transferred from the fighter command to the bomber command. This means that jet fighter pilot training is stopped. Instead, bomber pilots will train to fly the Me-262, as a bomber. The decision also further delays production. 

Aug. 1944 - Ploesti, Germany's only source of natural oil, is destroyed by systematic bombardments, and then occupied by the Russian army. The shortage of fuel quickly becomes unbearable, and until the end of the war the German Air Force will have much more aircraft than it can actually fly, because of fuel shortage. Furthermore, allied fighters achieve air superiority all over Germany, and will keep it until the end of the war. They also begin to raid German air bases. The Me-262 (bomber version) makes its debut, bombing mostly in France, causing insignificant damage. 

Sept. 1944 - The Luftwaffe's 60 Me-262 bombers are destroyed on the ground by American bombers. The Luftwaffe's first six evaluation Me-262 fighters are scrambled to protect them, but too late. (just imagine what if all the 66 Me-262s were operated by fighter pilots and scrambled..) 

Oct. 1944 - Germany now has a real jet bomber, the Arado 234, and Hitler, still obsessed with bombers, agrees to a "deal" in which for every Arado 234 bomber delivered, a Me-262 of the fighter version will also be delivered. The first few Me-262s (fighter version) become operational. The small new unit shoots down an increasing number of allied aircraft, and The Allies respond by fighter and bomber raids on its air base. Hitler agrees to expand the small unit from a few aircraft to the world's first jet fighter wing (JG7)_".


----------



## Readie (Oct 5, 2011)

woljags said:


> so what do you have in mind John as your selection



Woljags, I'm looking for original idea(s). Its very hard to pick just one so...


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Iiwd-_uCLQ_. 

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdUAucryZII_. Very much like the B29.
Arado Ar E.340 Medium Bomber - History, Specs and Pictures - Military Aircraft.

That'll do for starters. 2 ground breaking designs and 1 to prove that the LW Boeing were heading in a similar direction.

Cheers
John


----------



## drgondog (Oct 6, 2011)

Wuzak - dumbass factor on my part as I jumped in late in the thread.


----------



## fastmongrel (Oct 6, 2011)

For a complete left field suggestion how about the Polikarpov Po-2 "Kukuruznik" Polikarpov Po-2 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Not an innovative design by any means but used in an innovative way for utterly innovative missions. Possibly the most cost effective combat aircraft of all time.


----------



## wuzak (Oct 6, 2011)

drgondog said:


> Wuzak - dumbass factor on my part as I jumped in late in the thread.



Not a problem....hasn't stopped others suggesting jet and rocket powered planes.


----------



## Ratsel (Oct 6, 2011)

I still say the The Caproni-Campini CC.2 I posted way back. Not a Jet, yet not a conventional prop driven aircraft.. I hybred of the two.


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 7, 2011)

parsifal said:


> A technicality, I will freely admit, but the Me 262 was not the worlds first operational jet fighter. It was the worlds first operational jet aircraft, but hitler forbade its designation as a fighter until the following october. by that time the worlds operational jet fighter, the meteors of 616 sqn, had been operational for some three months"...


With all due respects, I disagree...

Erprobungskommando 262 was put into service on 19 April 44 and the first action against an enemy aircraft happened on 26 July 44...right about the time that the RAF 616 Sqdn was taking delivery of thier Meteors...

As far as innovation goes, I think that WWII was more of a transitional/perfection period than anything. Most of the innovations in flight had been either tried in WWI, or during the years that followed, so it's going to be pretty hard to nail down any single piston powered aircraft that was truly unique in that respect.


----------



## Readie (Oct 7, 2011)

GrauGeist said:


> I agree it is hard and that's what makes the thread interesting as the usual suspects are excluded.
> Have you a candidate?
> Cheers
> John


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 8, 2011)

Readie, to be honest, I don't have a candidate for the most innovative aircraft of the war as far as piston powered machines go. The war took all the ideas that had been in development beforehand and accelerated the process of evolution from decades down to years.

However, if I had to choose any _single_ innovation that was developed during the war, I'd be hard pressed to choose between the ejection seat and the radar absorbing technique that the Horton brothers were working with. Both of which were ahead of thier time and are very much in use globally to this day.


----------



## vanir (Oct 8, 2011)

I like the idea of categorising by era, ie. early war, late war and so on. Basically because there's just too many to choose from 

Every time I read the development of an aircraft type it's only been rarely and notable when it wasn't innovative. Those guys were cluey man, back in the days when it was all so new. Often just regular joes because all the qualified disciplines involved had barely been invented, you were having auto mechanics and hobbyists doing the job of modern aeronautical engineers in some cases and getting by on merit.

I like the airacobra for its innovation and reform, conservative ideals have little place in warfare or engineering. But it did have a design flaw of being a little too innovative, it didn't fly like other planes and I think this was the biggest reason it lacked popularity for a fighter mount, the Russians certainly did just fine on that score so it was no engineering failure...it was an ergonomic one.
It's unsettling to fly if you're used to regular trainers, the cockpit moves like a seesaw in manoeuvres because of where it is to balance the plane with the engine fitment. They couldn't rely on cannon weight and ammunition with that because the ammo when used would make it unstable (this was the problem with the P-80A). So the cockpit is firmly placed like a see saw in relation to centre of lift so that it's a really unsettling aircraft to BFM with. Very easy to misjudge.
I also believe this was related to its spin reputation, again the Russians had no such problem. But you see they leapt from clapped biplanes to poorly tooled attempts at a fighter slapped together in a tractor factory so basically had no problem with jumping in a P-39 and starting over from scratch on flight training. Americans not so much, they get nice trainers, good training in nicely built machines and get used to classical, stable gun platforms with good moves and a bit of power. That's like throwing a footy jock onto a ballet stage with the P-39, and of course it's the plane's fault.

As for late innovations, I'm with the Ta-152C zerstörer, people think of it in dora terms but they weren't, they were meant to replace the intended role of the Me-210/410 with the Do335 as a more conservative alternative choice. The heavy-fighter(jabo and escort) and zerstörer role. It was to have supplanted Fw-190D production which took lead on general fighter duties (which was its interim type).

It's like the Mustang, which gets vote for midwar innovations. Designed to essentially perform the job traditionally requiring a twin engine, that of bomber escort (in interwar period these were things like the Blenheim, bomber escorts had range, speed and often a light loadout themselves), but it was single seat and deadly as a short range interceptor. At best people might've thought of bomber escorts as the P-38, Germany was traditional with the Me-110, soviets and americans often converted bombers into gunships as escorts. The Mustange blew all of that away, nobody expected it.
The Ta152C does that but with heavy fighter-bomber/attack models rather than long range escorts. It replaces things like Fw-190F, Me-410, Ju-88, packing their specialised heavy equipment in a single engine high performance airframe capable of combating Tempests, I think it would've been a terrific success.


----------



## tomo pauk (Oct 8, 2011)

A disagreement, vanir: Mustang was not designed as a bomber escort.


----------



## vanir (Oct 8, 2011)

no I know that, but it was earmarked for that role so effectively re-engineered specifically for it when they added the destabilising rear fuselage tank.


----------



## Elmas (Oct 9, 2011)

Me 262.
All other "_innovative_" designs were dreams, not aeroplanes.....


----------



## Readie (Oct 9, 2011)

Elmas said:


> Me 262.
> All other "_innovative_" designs were dreams, not aeroplanes.....



Ummm...maybe without the 'dreams' the jet would have been invented.
A rather pointless remark Elmas, if you don't mind me saying so.
John


----------



## Elmas (Oct 9, 2011)

Readie said:


> Ummm...maybe without the 'dreams' the jet would have been invented.
> A rather pointless remark Elmas, if you don't mind me saying so.
> John



About that, the aeroplane itself is born from dreamers, from Leonardo da Vinci to the Wright Brothers, passing trough Stringfellow, Pénaud, Lilienthal, Adér and many others....
The Me 262 was the first real step towards the jet era, that completely changed the world.
In 1945 this aeroplane, with jet engines with axial compressors, was shooting missiles towards his enemies, while in Korea the Americans were still shooting with 0.50s.....
The Me 163 or the Lippisch or Horten designs were certainly amazing (dreams, by my persona point view) but the mainstream towards the future was signed by the Me 262.
Elmas


----------



## Readie (Oct 9, 2011)

Elmas said:


> ...while in Korea the Americans were still shooting with 0.50s......
> Elmas



Light the fuse and set back...

Elmas,
The thread is trying to find the most innovative *piston engined* aircraft. Its proving hard to pin point one example but, if you read the posts you'll see some cracking examples. 
The Italian aircraft industry engineers were up there with the best. Can you suggest a plane that contributes to this thread?
Best wishes
John


----------



## tyrodtom (Oct 9, 2011)

The Me-163 was certainly a innovative way to kill Luftwaffe personnel, but it was not piston engined.


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 9, 2011)

Now in all fairness, the Horton Brothers did have a piston powered wing, like Jack Northrup's and the Me262 _did_ first fly under piston power (engine in the nose, jet nacelles were empty)...

The Komet...well, it did have a little propellor in the nose!


----------



## TheMustangRider (Oct 9, 2011)

Elmas said:


> In 1945 this aeroplane, with jet engines with axial compressors, was shooting missiles towards his enemies, while in Korea the Americans were still shooting with 0.50s.....
> 
> Elmas




With due respect Elmas, in 1945 Me-262s were not exactly using heat-seeking or radar-guided missiles against heavy bombers nor were the Americans in Korea without a clue about the ordinance the Me-262 carried.


----------



## vanir (Oct 10, 2011)

You know one of the things I like about the Yak-9 was that it had such a good reputation as a fighter, if built well, but was actually the airframe of a two seat combat conversion trainer, modified on the production line.

The fighter yak was the Yak-1 but it was a difficult aircraft to fly, the trainer version was the UTI/Yak-7 which pilots actually preferred because it was more stable and with one crew had the same performance as the single seater. The little one was smaller, more nimble, but ever so slightly inherently unstable. Eventually what happened as service deliveries ramped up through 1942 onwards the Guards squadrons, any aces which requested it, and some raw recruits got the Yak-1, the regular front line units got the Yak-7 (combat modified version stripped of the second crew position but still using the trainer airframe, armed and engined like the Yak-1). The Yak-7 became the Yak-9 and the Yak-1 became the Yak-3. These Yak-3 used older engines and were virtually restricted to Guards squadrons only. The standard fighter had become the Yak-9.

So the Yak-9 was never intended to be a fighter, just a fighter-trainer. The Yak that was meant to be a fighter needed a flight computer, well not really but reportedly only experienced pilots with a flair for seat of the pants manoeuvring could fly them well, but could out turn anything ever made in one. It was the aircraft the Luftwaffe were warned about, not to dogfight under 3000 metres.

The Yak-9 but, straight out of the box in February 43 they were rated as equivalent to the Me-109(G) in all respects and trading one for one in aerial combat over the Kuban. Considering the numerical superiority it came as a shock slightly out of proportion to the actual qualities of the plane, but it was a darn good plane and based on a trainer.

Postwar US comparative test pilots got their hands on some captured NK Yak-9P aircraft (Yak-9U with the rechambered Beresins instead of Shvak), they rated it as equivalent to the P-51D with some superior qualities.


----------



## Elmas (Oct 10, 2011)

Readie said:


> Light the fuse and set back...
> 
> Elmas,
> The thread is trying to find the most innovative *piston engined* aircraft.......



Sorry, I have to apologize: I didn't read all the posts and the title of the 3d was deceiving, as it does not speak of pistons......




Readie said:


> The Italian aircraft industry engineers were up there with the best. Can you suggest a plane that contributes to this thread?
> Best wishes
> John



No, with the exception of the Caproni Campini CC 2 wich I see was already mentioned in a post I can't see an Italian aircraft of WW II era with a piston engine that was really innovative.
There where planes like the "Serie 5" fighters that were beautiful machines for flying and fighting ( I spoke with WWII Italian pilots that were very upset when they had to change their Macchi 205 for the P 39s, but that's another story) that were fine works of craftmanship as today the shoes of Prada or the bags of Gucci, but I can't say that they were something real new for aerodinamics, structrural design and much less power plants.

The last Italian aeroplane with a piston engine that was really innovative was the seaplane Macchi MC 72 in the early '30: but Italo Balbo, wich was behind the whole project, was sacked from Mussolini, wich was very jealous of Balbo's popularity, and sent him overseas as Governor of Lybia and all the innovative programs in aeronautics in Italy practically ended.

So, the most innovative aircraft with piston engines of WWII era by my personal point of view was not a fighter but a bomber, the B 29.

Cheers


----------



## Readie (Oct 10, 2011)

Elmas said:


> So, the most innovative aircraft with piston engines of WWII era by my personal point of view was not a fighter but a bomber, the B 29.
> 
> Cheers



Elmas, are you in league with Mr Morales and the B29 love club? ( I'm only joking)...the B29 keeps appearing like a bad penny. The real innovation in heavy bombers was all ready done before the B29 even took to the air. A bitter pills for our American friends but, we British were first.

Who bombed first (with apologies to Pete Townshend)

Cheers
John


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 10, 2011)

Readie said:


> A bitter pills for our American friends but, we British were first.



And the B-29 was a better bomber...

A bitter pill for our British friends, and one that some don't like to admit.  

(But this has been beaten like a dead horse. I won't bore you with it anymore. Besides it is for a different thread.)

As for the topic, I am not sure what the most innovative piston engine aircraft was, but in the case of the B-29, I would have to say it incorporated more innovative features than any other bomber of WW2. That however would mostly be because of the fact that it was the next generation. Some of the features it included were tricycle landing gear, pressurized cockpit, remote controlled defensive armament, etc. There were many aircraft that incorporated these features as well though. Fact remains it was still the bomber to measure all others by at the end of WW2 (that includes the Lanc, B-17 and B-24, none of which were more innovative than the B-29...).

Note I am not a B-29ophile, I just believe in giving credit where it is due.


----------



## Elmas (Oct 10, 2011)

*O.T. mode on*







Yes, the photo, taken in Bardia ( Cyrenaica, Lybian-Egiptian border) during the Summer of 1968 is not a photo of aeroplanes, but ....

the third gentleman from the left in the upper row is Lt. Z*****y, a Czech who escaped from his homeland in 1940 and served as Navigator on the Lancasters during the war: in those days he was commanding the Rescue Service in El Adem Military airport near Tobruk. I’m somewhere among the others.

We had a lot of conversations about his experiences during the war, including one mission in wich almost a yard of the wing tip of his Lancaster was sawed off by a nightfighter....

Once he told me : “_There’s no pleasure whatsoever to fly with today’s aircrafts. They are just transistor radios that fly....._”

*O.T. mode off*

The B 29 was the prototipe of those transistor radios that fly nowadays, so by my personal point of view, this ship was the most innovative aircraft of WWII........

With piston engines, of course.

P.S. : the Lady in the left of the front row is the wife of W.Cdr. W****, wich was in those days the Commander of El Adem Airport and fought in his twenties in the BoB (the husband, of course....).

Cheers


----------



## Readie (Oct 11, 2011)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> (But this has been beaten like a dead horse...)



Yep, we'll be had up for animal cruelty....

I'm trying to find the most innovative piston engined aeroplane not, one that developed a well established format.
So, the B29 was the logical end development of the well tried tested 4 piston engined heavy bomber. No argument with that.

But, what was the first plane that proved the 4 engined bomber? 

Cheers
John


----------



## Elmas (Oct 11, 2011)

We have do discuss about the semantics of the term "innovation"......

By my personal point of view the most important innovation from 1939 to 1945 was inside the aircrafts and not in their skins......

An aeroplane, IMHO, is not only pieces of bent aluminium and engines, but idraulics, electrics and electronics, autopilots, IFFs, navigation systems, ground organization to produce them in large quantities, to train a large amount of skilled crew and keep them flying and fighting in adverse places and conditions......these, IMHO, are the real factors of innovation in aviation.

And the B 29 program, that costed more than the Manhattan project, by this point of view was the most advanced in those years and that gave the most technological "fall outs" in the aviation after the war.

If, instead, we have to discuss about which aircraft in WWII had the aluminium bent in the most fancy way, that's another story....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 11, 2011)

Readie said:


> But, what was the first plane that proved the 4 engined bomber?



Well then we are more than likely discussing before WW2. 

Off of the top of my head I would say the first real successful 4 engined bomber would be the B-17 (note I am not saying it is the best 4 engined bomber). Nore do I think the B-17 is the most innovative.

I guess to figure that out though, we would have to make a list of 4 engined bombers built around the time of the B-17.


----------



## Shortround6 (Oct 11, 2011)

Readie said:


> I'm trying to find the most innovative piston engined aeroplane not, one that developed a well established format.
> So, the B29 was the logical end development of the well tried tested 4 piston engined heavy bomber. No argument with that.
> 
> But, what was the first plane that proved the 4 engined bomber?
> ...



I don't know, the Handley Page V/1500?

Zeppelin-Staaken R.VI? 

Sikorsky Ilya Muromets?

There were no new configurations of aircraft in WW II (unless you count the jets) practically every combination of engines, number, location and so on had already been tried. Tricycle landing gear was under development in the 30s and in WW I some planes actually had quadracycle gear, two (or more) main wheels with two nose wheels even if they didn't steer. 

What was new were systems or functions that changed the way aircraft could be used. The US Grasshoppers were "innovative" in that showed that small, cheap, low powered planes could do many (most) of the jobs of much larger "army co-operation planes" even though there was nothing "innovative" in the planes themselves. Transports with ramps for loading vehicles or large cargo. new methods of construction, welding wasn't new but welding aircraft structure was.


----------



## Elmas (Oct 11, 2011)

Let's take just the B 29 wing:







a wing of a such an high aspect ratio 






with such high loads is in itself a masterpiece of structural engineering of those days.....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Oct 11, 2011)

Shortround6 said:


> I don't know, the Handley Page V/1500?
> 
> Zeppelin-Staaken R.VI?
> 
> ...



I have to agree. It is really hard to pinpoint a WW2 "piston" aircraft. I guess that is what makes it interesting though.


----------



## Readie (Oct 11, 2011)

It is hard Chris. 
But, finding the answer will pass an hour or two


----------



## Edgar Brooks (Oct 11, 2011)

My pick is the Me262, and before everyone leaps up and down, yelling,"It's a jet," the first prototype was pulled along by a piston engine; as it developed, it changed flight/flying for ever. The B-29 changed the way we wage war, which isn't the same thing.
Edgar


----------



## Readie (Oct 12, 2011)

The circle is complete gentlemen.
We start trying to discuss innovation in piston engined aircraft and end up with the B29 ME262..
Oh well...
John


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 12, 2011)

Instead of trying to decide which aircraft (including the Me262 and B-29) was the most innovative, how about looking at the components that were the most innovative (i.e.: unique for WWII) and then sum up which aircraft incorporated the most innovations that made it stand out from the rest...


----------



## Readie (Oct 12, 2011)

GrauGeist said:


> Instead of trying to decide which aircraft (including the Me262 and B-29) was the most innovative, how about looking at the components that were the most innovative (i.e.: unique for WWII) and then sum up which aircraft incorporated the most innovations that made it stand out from the rest...



Good idea GG. That's a better way of explaining the point I seek.
Thanks
John


----------



## Ross Sharp (May 3, 2018)

I'll still plump for the Mosquito - radical use of materials, first 'composite' fuselage on a warplane, first use of RF heating in assembly, first major use of a long range bomber with no defensive armament except speed, almost endless variation of types from fighter, to reconnaissance, to maritime attack, fighter bomber, ELINT platform, night-fighter etc. etc

www.peoplesmosquito.org.uk

p.s. We're building one in Britain!

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (May 5, 2018)

Haven't read the entire thread but consider the P-51;

First production aircraft with Low Drag Wing which a.) reduced profile drag by 40% over nearest competitors and b.) delayed Mach transition despite a reasonably fat wing.

The manufacturing techniques of flush rivets and surface finish in 1940, combined with higher than average T/C (more internal space)and low drag profile enabled the Mustang from day 1 to achieve significantly higher fuel storage in the wing, install 4x20mm cannon, achieve unmatchable drag performance for high speeds and long range.

The delivery of a Meredith Cooling system which actually achieved net thrust to overcome medium to high speed profile and cooling drag added to already impressive speed and range capability.

The Mustang only carried the 20mm cannon in P-51-1 and Mustang IA but recall no 'bumps' or other issues while carrying significant belt fed ammo capacity

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Timppa (May 5, 2018)

DH.98 Mosquito.
-Advanced wooden structure that was used even in D.H. early jets.
-Radiator design that used Meredith effect.
-Boldness to discard all the gunners.
-The first real multi-role combat aircraft.
- It just look good.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## rednev (May 5, 2018)

Ross Sharp said:


> I'll still plump for the Mosquito - radical use of materials, first 'composite' fuselage on a warplane,
> 
> www.peoplesmosquito.org.uk
> 
> p.s. We're building one in Britain!


How would you describe the bonded plywood fuselages used by albatross ,pfalz,and roland used during ww1 ?
was the mosquito a whole new concept or a refinement of an older technology ?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (May 5, 2018)

Russians also had their 'delta wood' a/c.


----------



## nuuumannn (May 6, 2018)

> p.s. We're building one in Britain!



Ooo, People's Mosquito person! Welcome! The more Mossies in flight the better, in my opinion. They are also building one in New Zealand!



> How would you describe the bonded plywood fuselages used by Albatros, Pfalz and Roland used during WW1?
> Was the Mosquito a whole new concept or a refinement of an older technology?



The latter, but to be pedantic, with regards to the Mosquito we're not talking specifically about being the first wooden structured aeroplane, but innovative use of that technology at the time, the early 40s. Those Great War designs were indeed laminated wood structures, and yes, they did set a precedent, but remember they were a part of an established norm; add LVG C VI to that list too, and wood construction was prevalent at the time. In the Mosquito, wood construction was, as these aeroplanes virtually the entire structure, which was unusual for a front line service aeroplane in 1941/1942 when it entered service and the reason behind the use of wood also set it apart from its contemporaries, not to mention that it was very good at damn near everything it did, although that's not specifically an innovation.



> The first real multi-role combat aircraft



I'd argue B.E.2c and 1 1/2 Strutter beat the Mossie to that accolade, but I get where you are going with that.

I'd offer the Messerschmitt Bf 108 and '109 as being very innovative. Although the Bf 109 was not the first all metal monoplane fighter, nor was it the first to feature the equipment I am about to list, it was the first to combine them in one airframe (although not all at once) and thus it did set a precedent - yes, I know what I just wrote, but bearing in mind with regards to the Bf 108 and '109, setting a precedent resulted from the incorporation of these innovations.

These include a true semi-monocoque structure, retractable undercarriage, landing flaps, enclosed canopy, variable incidence trimmable tailplane, variable pitch propeller, cannon armament, leading edge slats - unusual in a fighter. The Bf 108 also incorporated such modernities as enclosed accommodation, the trimmable tailplane, leading edge slats, variable pitch prop, retractable undercarriage landing flaps all in a semi monocoque structure, not bad for an early '30s light aeroplane. Both designs shared these innovations and did set a bechmark.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Timppa (May 6, 2018)

nuuumannn said:


> Although the Bf 109 was not the first all metal monoplane fighter, nor was it the first to feature the equipment I am about to list, it was the first to combine them in one airframe (although not all at once) and thus it did set a precedent.
> 
> These include a true semi-monocoque structure, retractable undercarriage, landing flaps, enclosed canopy, variable incidence trimmable tailplane, variable pitch propeller, cannon armament, leading edge slats - unusual in a fighter.



Let's check this against the earlier Polikarpov I-16:
-true semi-monocoque structure: check (although wooden)
-retractable undercarriage: check
-landing flaps: check
-enclosed canopy: no
-variable incidence trimmable tailplane:no (although other manufacturers did not see any advantage until the jet age)
-variable pitch propeller: check
-cannon armament: check (earlier and with better cannon than MG-FF)
-leading edge slats: no (again other manufacturers (apart from Lavochkin) did not see any particular advantage)
What the I-16 had earlier than the Bf109:
-Pilot seat armour
-Self-sealing fuel tank


----------



## nuuumannn (May 7, 2018)

Hmm, I feel Timmpa, you are just splitting hairs. Yes, the Poli certainly deserves its place in history, of that there is no doubt, but the Bf 109 was still more innovative as it set a benchmark for ALL-METAL fighters and in the upcoming conflict, the best and greatest had more in common with the Bf 109 than they did with the Poli. Despite its innovations, the Poli still had (more than) one foot in the past.

Trimmable tailplane, the Bf 109 didn't have moveable trim tabs, only ground adjustable ones, and the trimmable tailplane was designed to be used in conjunction with its flaps - you also didn't mention the Poli had flaperons, full span ailerons that could be used as flaps; oddly, as did the Bf 109, there were two wheels to the pilot's left, one of which operated the flaps, one of which operated the tailplane. When wound together, they prevented the aeroplane from ballooning.

On to the slats, were you aware that almost all of Messerschmitt's fighters had lift augmenting devices on their outer wings (either fixed or moveable)? From the Bf 109 to the Bf 110, Me 2 and 410, Me 163 and Me 262? Few other fighter designers at that time used such devices (the Mitsubishi Zero had washout incorporated into its outer wing panels) and yes, in a tight turn at a high angle of bank made things awkward for the '109 pilot, but although it had a high wing loading, the '109 had surprisingly benign stall, thanks to those slats. These things were inherited from the Bf 108.

As for things like self sealing tanks, armour, the Bf 109 also had these and yes, the Poli had many of the innovations the Bf 109 had before it, but, like I said earlier, technologically it was overtaken by events, whereas the Bf 109 remained relevant for longer as a result of the innovations it did introduce.


----------



## Zipper730 (May 7, 2018)

michaelmaltby said:


> *In 1939*, when war broke out, my call would be the Bell P-39 Airacobra. Mid-engine. Tricycle LG. Canon through spinner. Electrics for most actuated devices (as opposed to manual or hydraulic. etc.)


The control surfaces were electric?


----------



## michaelmaltby (May 7, 2018)

"... The control surfaces were electric?"
No, I don't believe so but the landing gear, prop pitch control and other systems were electric.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## bada (May 9, 2018)

As for what a War fighter airplane should be=
-_Ergonomics_>cockpit layout> the first one have each function in distinctive place with an easy access: HOTAS 'daddy.
-High G capability for airframe AND pilot (1st one for the pilot?)
-_Ease of maintenance_ (sub-structures )-> the first one to been designed like that.
-Good Firepower->one of the best till end war
-The only one to have that feature in WW2 : *Total ease of engine management:* One throttle for all engine functions:

FW-190.


----------



## vikingBerserker (May 9, 2018)

For innovation, I would go with the Ar 232, it really redefined the true cargo aircraft.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (May 10, 2018)

AR 232 rather ignores the multitude of American cargo aircraft of not much difference in timing. Not enough to say the US copied the AR 232 in any case.
granted the actual aircraft were a bit below being great (or even good/acceptable) in some cases) but the ideas were there.
Curtiss C-76





Nose would swing to the side for loading.
Budd Conestoga




Fairchild C-82




While it didn't fly until Sept of 1945 the C-74 was rather innovative
including an elevator. 





Using aircraft as "tactical" transports to move cargo/men into even "warm zones" on unimproved strips sounds a lot better in theory than in practice. 
Transports are expensive and there are never enough of them. Getting them shot up by rifles, lmgs and small mortars is a luxury few nations can afford.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (May 11, 2018)

"Innovative" doesn't necessarily result in "great"; greatness comes from good detail design preceded by a well-thought out, coherent spec. The P-51 wasn't particularly innovative, but it was very well designed. 

The P-39 was innovative, and gets a gentleman's "C." The B-29 was quite innovative, even though its configuration was generally conventional; it was certainly the best heavy bomber to see service in WW2.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 11, 2018)

swampyankee said:


> "Innovative" doesn't necessarily result in "great"; greatness comes from good detail design preceded by a well-thought out, coherent spec. The P-51 wasn't particularly innovative, but it was very well designed.
> 
> The P-39 was innovative, and gets a gentleman's "C." The B-29 was quite innovative, even though its configuration was generally conventional; * it was certainly the best heavy bomber to see service in WW2.*



I agree with you, but man I do remember some of these debates with the Brits on this forum. Hundreds of pages of the B-29 vs. Lancaster, and what was the best heavy bomber. Good times...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Dimlee (May 12, 2018)

Timppa said:


> Let's check this against the earlier Polikarpov I-16:
> -true semi-monocoque structure: check (although wooden)
> -retractable undercarriage: check
> -landing flaps: check
> ...



Enclosed canopy: *yes* - on type 4 and probably early production of type 5.


----------



## Milosh (May 12, 2018)

Halifax, Lancaster, B-17 and B-24 were classed as heavy bombers. The B-29 was classed as a *very* heavy bomber.


----------



## ktank (May 13, 2018)

oldhat said:


> B-29.
> 
> B-29 Superfortress changed the game of air power strategy up until this day. B-52 is a direct descendant of the B-29 and is still in service. For a basic heavy bomber concept that has had a 60+ year service life...well...what can you say?
> 
> For fighters, I'd say the Me-262. You can see the lines of the F-80/6 and MiG-15 if you squint at the Me-262.



I've often thought that if you combine the pressurised fuselage of the B-29 with the swept wings, underslung jet engines, and swept tail surfaces of the Me262 you pretty much have the blueprint for every modern airliner.


----------



## Gemhorse (May 14, 2018)

That was what progress inevitably created...

My beef with it was, but sure, the B.29 could carry lots of bombs, or two tallboys, or the nukes, but it's original format was to be a ''very high altitude big bomber'' - it was a long & expensive bitch to get it into service, with it's engine-fires and one thing or another & then when it did get going they discovered the jetstream which blew it & bombs off-course but luckily they had captured the Marianas by then and after Curtis Le May got posted-in to run them, he had all the extra weight & guns taken out, painted them black underneath and basically copied the Brits Bomber Command of going in at night at 15-20,000 ft and dropping heaps of incendiaries and some 250-500 lb-er's on the Japs' wood & paper cities and another 6 months of that, they wouldn't have needed the nukes - But oh no, Truman figured he now had the 'big stick' and he had to let Old Joe know but Joe already knew and the rest is History - After he karked it in 1953 and the following leaders blew-out the bank playing big-bomb-building, there was a chance with Gorbachev to finally end the Cold War & have some real peace & real growth ~ 

This last 70-odd years of NATO and bullshit little wars that Eisenhower warned us about if you let the Military Industrial Complex run amuck with the politicians, has not advanced mankind at all, we are still caught up with pithy, greedy, vicious people-in-power who can't see past their own collective self-interests, namely money & power, mankind's two greatest addictions ~ 

God Help Us


----------



## BiffF15 (May 14, 2018)

Gemhorse said:


> That was what progress inevitably created...
> 
> My beef with it was, but sure, the B.29 could carry lots of bombs, or two tallboys, or the nukes, but it's original format was to be a ''very high altitude big bomber'' - it was a long & expensive bitch to get it into service, with it's engine-fires and one thing or another & then when it did get going they discovered the jetstream which blew it & bombs off-course but luckily they had captured the Marianas by then and after Curtis Le May got posted-in to run them, he had all the extra weight & guns taken out, painted them black underneath and basically copied the Brits Bomber Command of going in at night at 15-20,000 ft and dropping heaps of incendiaries and some 250-500 lb-er's on the Japs' wood & paper cities and another 6 months of that, they wouldn't have needed the nukes - *But oh no, Truman figured he now had the 'big stick' and he had to let Old Joe know but Joe already knew and the rest is History *- After he karked it in 1953 and the following leaders blew-out the bank playing big-bomb-building, there was a chance with Gorbachev to finally end the Cold War & have some real peace & real growth ~
> 
> ...




Gemhorse,

I thought the "bomb" was dropped after serious consideration to how long the Japanese could / would last, and how many more soldiers / people would die if there was an invasion? It's easy in todays infomercial world to think one understands things, but it's entirely different to immerse oneself in the mentality, attitude of the time after years of War. It would take quite a bit of info to the contrary to paint a believable picture that the Bomb was dropped to show who had the biggest Johnson. 

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Gemhorse (May 14, 2018)

Thanks Biff for your considered reply,
I have immersed myself in war reading for years and when the Allies moved into the Japanese homeland after the surrender, the Japanese were totally stuffed. Not just in Hiroshima & Nagasaki but almost everywhere. Not unlike Berlin. They too had suffered a political govt. that ground the people and every bit of food & supply for them to near starvation. 'Warrior Nations' - I have seen the photos, spoken with relatives & others that arrived with the J-Force. I just feel that if they had stayed the order to use the bomb and waited them out or continued the night fire raids, they would have capitulated. As history shows, Russia had started it's invasion of Manchuria and nothing freaked-out the Japanese more than the ''Russians are coming !'' The massive losses up to Okinawa absorbed by the US forces were indeed a point of serious consideration. I often wonder why the US Air Force didn't borrow a few Tallboys off the Brits and use them against, say, Iwo Jima, these earthquake bombs would have saved some US lives. But it still seems that the Japanese may have surrendered if the US had hung back and just continued to firebomb, as this was working and I don't think that after the way things had gone with the Allies & Russia at Berlin, the US was going to let Russia land-grab some more in Manchuria and continue nibbling on into Japan, as they were already in the Kuril Isands up north. I feel that was perhaps why the US dropped it's Johnson when it did... -No offense intended. Around that time, Russia used 3 B-29's that landed off-course in Russia and started making their own copies of them, as they were a nuclear delivery aircraft. It all was really a matter of timing. and you may be right that I could have it all wrong, but there was a tight game going on back then and to me, unfortunately Pandora's Box was opened and here we are today still sabre-rattling with nukes... In this respect, mankind has not really moved forward past the threat of total global destruction....so...
[Down here in Aotearoa [NZ] it's 3.30am & my minds getting mushy-}

Regards Biff, I hope you can see what I'm trying to say ...
Cheers ~


----------



## GrauGeist (May 14, 2018)

Gemhorse, you do realize that the firebombing of Tokyo killed, wounded and displaced more people than Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined, right?

The Japanese people were not ready to quit the fight, had pooled all their best pilots, fighters and troops in the home islands. They had developed a heavy tank specifically for homeland defense and had amassed stockpiles of ammunition, fuel and supplies. The population was ready to meet Allied troops armed with literally sharp sticks if that's what it came down to.

If the Allies thought that just a few more months of fire bombing their cities would do the trick (Soviets or no Soviets), then they wouldn't have started massing and staging naval assets, tens of thousands of troops (bolstered by seasoned ETO troops) and thousands of fighters and bombers.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## vikingBerserker (May 14, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> AR 232 rather ignores the multitude of American cargo aircraft of not much difference in timing. Not enough to say the US copied the AR 232 in any case.
> granted the actual aircraft were a bit below being great (or even good/acceptable) in some cases) but the ideas were there.
> Curtiss C-76
> 
> ...



I have to disagree, the design of those aircraft occurred after the Ar 232's first flight (06/41). Those aircraft did not take flight until 1943/44.


----------



## pbehn (May 14, 2018)

I always thought the Catalina had a fantastic and elegant solution of a sea plane being able to operate on land and get the wing floats out of the way after take off.


----------



## Shortround6 (May 14, 2018)

vikingBerserker said:


> I have to disagree, the design of those aircraft occurred after the Ar 232's first flight (06/41). Those aircraft did not take flight until 1943/44.



The AR 232 may have been the "first" but unless it was known to the American designers it had little or no influence on the choices they made. 
Initial design work on the C-76 & C-82 starting in 1941 and the Conestoga in 1942. 
Give a number of design groups similar or identical specifications to meet and you are going to wind up with some of proposals being somewhat close to each other.
If the aircraft specification calls for loading/unloading a vehicle then, unless the aircraft is very large, you have to have either a nose door/s or a rear door/s and ramps to go with it. Or large door/ramp.


----------



## Glider (May 14, 2018)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I agree with you, but man I do remember some of these debates with the Brits on this forum. Hundreds of pages of the B-29 vs. Lancaster, and what was the best heavy bomber. Good times...


Make that some of the Brits, this one will acknowledge that the B29 was the best but the Lanc was second best


----------



## GrauGeist (May 14, 2018)

To be honest, the C-76 wasn't really impressive in spite of it's swing-away nose.

The Me323 on the otherhand, weighs in as perhaps the first true heavy-lift, complete with it's front loading capability and 43 ton capacity.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 14, 2018)

Glider said:


> Make that some of the Brits, this one will acknowledge that the B29 was the best but the Lanc was second best



Yeah it was mostly CC and Lanc...


----------



## Shortround6 (May 14, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> To be honest, the C-76 wasn't really impressive in spite of it's swing-away nose.
> 
> The Me323 on the otherhand, weighs in as perhaps the first true heavy-lift, complete with it's front loading capability and 43 ton capacity.



Not trying to claim that the C-76 was even mediocre, let alone good. Neither was the Conestoga to be honest, but the idea that the AR 232 was somehow the father of all modern cargo transports needs a rethink no matter how many websites repeat it. 
However "modern" cargo transports needed engines of a certain size ( a pair of R-1830s was not it as the US found out) to go with the nose or tail doors so it wasn't going to show up until you had two good sized engines or 3-4 smaller ones (or six).
Similar requirements are going to generate similar results, subject to availability of materials and mechanical items (engines, etc) and production priorities. 
US had C-47s, C-46s and C-54s making another cargo plane a bit lower on the priority list.


----------



## Glider (May 14, 2018)

I believe that the most innovative aircraft would be

Arado 234 - Light bomber jet propulsion single seat rear firing guns.
Me 262 - Do I need to say anything
Ju252 - I like the rear loading ramp
Beaufighter. - First true nightfighter with radar performance range and firepower
B29 - Need I say anything


----------



## swampyankee (May 14, 2018)

It predated WWII by a few years, but DC-2 or 247 were the first really modern transport aircraft.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (May 14, 2018)

Gemhorse said:


> Thanks Biff for your considered reply,
> I have immersed myself in war reading for years and when the *Allies moved into the Japanese homeland after the surrender, the Japanese were totally stuffed.* Not just in Hiroshima & Nagasaki but almost everywhere. Not unlike Berlin. They too had suffered a political govt. that ground the people and every bit of food & supply for them to near starvation. 'Warrior Nations' - I have seen the photos, spoken with relatives & others that arrived with the J-Force. I just feel that if they had stayed the order to use the bomb and waited them out or continued the night fire raids, they would have capitulated. As history shows, Russia had started it's invasion of Manchuria and nothing freaked-out the Japanese more than the ''Russians are coming !'' The massive losses up to Okinawa absorbed by the US forces were indeed a point of serious consideration. I often wonder why the US Air Force didn't borrow a few Tallboys off the Brits and use them against, say, Iwo Jima, these earthquake bombs would have saved some US lives. But it still seems that the Japanese may have surrendered if the US had hung back and just continued to firebomb, as this was working and I don't think that after the way things had gone with the Allies & Russia at Berlin, the US was going to let Russia land-grab some more in Manchuria and continue nibbling on into Japan, as they were already in the Kuril Isands up north. I feel that was perhaps why the US dropped it's Johnson when it did... -No offense intended. Around that time, Russia used 3 B-29's that landed off-course in Russia and started making their own copies of them, as they were a nuclear delivery aircraft. It all was really a matter of timing. and you may be right that I could have it all wrong, but there was a tight game going on back then and to me, unfortunately Pandora's Box was opened and here we are today still sabre-rattling with nukes... In this respect, mankind has not really moved forward past the threat of total global destruction....so...
> [Down here in Aotearoa [NZ] it's 3.30am & my minds getting mushy-}
> 
> ...



Gemhorse,

I do see what it is that you are conveying. However the highlighted text says quite a bit. Emphasis on “after the surrender “. What was known is that the Japanese were fanatical fighters, often choosing death over surrender. Each island taken in the Pacific had reinforced that. Lots of young men had died enroute and many more would have died to take that Island. What wasn’t known is what the true level of resistance would have been. They made the call and the right one, in my opinion, even if it was a terrible thing. 

It’s a really terrible weapon, was then and still is now, and I hope none are ever again used in anger.

V/R,
Biff

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (May 14, 2018)

Gemhorse said:


> Thanks Biff for your considered reply,
> I have immersed myself in war reading for years and when the Allies moved into the Japanese homeland after the surrender, the Japanese were totally stuffed. Not just in Hiroshima & Nagasaki but almost everywhere. Not unlike Berlin. They too had suffered a political govt. that ground the people and every bit of food & supply for them to near starvation. 'Warrior Nations' - I have seen the photos, spoken with relatives & others that arrived with the J-Force. I just feel that if they had stayed the order to use the bomb and waited them out or continued the night fire raids, they would have capitulated. As history shows, Russia had started it's invasion of Manchuria and nothing freaked-out the Japanese more than the ''Russians are coming !'' The massive losses up to Okinawa absorbed by the US forces were indeed a point of serious consideration. I often wonder why the US Air Force didn't borrow a few Tallboys off the Brits and use them against, say, Iwo Jima, these earthquake bombs would have saved some US lives. But it still seems that the Japanese may have surrendered if the US had hung back and just continued to firebomb, as this was working and I don't think that after the way things had gone with the Allies & Russia at Berlin, the US was going to let Russia land-grab some more in Manchuria and continue nibbling on into Japan, as they were already in the Kuril Isands up north. I feel that was perhaps why the US dropped it's Johnson when it did... -No offense intended. Around that time, Russia used 3 B-29's that landed off-course in Russia and started making their own copies of them, as they were a nuclear delivery aircraft. It all was really a matter of timing. and you may be right that I could have it all wrong, but there was a tight game going on back then and to me, unfortunately Pandora's Box was opened and here we are today still sabre-rattling with nukes... In this respect, mankind has not really moved forward past the threat of total global destruction....so...
> [Down here in Aotearoa [NZ] it's 3.30am & my minds getting mushy-}
> 
> ...




One very real fear that the US had was that of mass suicides by Japanese civilians in the event of a successful landing. This had happened in Saipan; the logic seems to have been to get the Japanese emperor, as head of state, to surrender (a surrender which was _not _unconditional; the Japanese required the emperor not be deposed), then the people would feel that their military and emperor had failed them, not vice versa, as could be the case had there needed to be an actual invasion.


----------



## vikingBerserker (May 14, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Not trying to claim that the C-76 was even mediocre, let alone good. Neither was the Conestoga to be honest, but the idea that the AR 232 was somehow the father of all modern cargo transports  needs a rethink no matter how many websites repeat it.
> However "modern" cargo transports needed engines of a certain size ( a pair of R-1830s was not it as the US found out) to go with the nose or tail doors so it wasn't going to show up until you had two good sized engines or 3-4 smaller ones (or six).
> Similar requirements are going to generate similar results, subject to availability of materials and mechanical items (engines, etc) and production priorities.
> US had C-47s, C-46s and C-54s making another cargo plane a bit lower on the priority list.



_From Aircraft of the Luftwaffe, 1935-1945: An Illustrated Guide_ by Jean-Denis G G Lepage, Page 345

"Arado Ar 232 The Ar 232 Tausendfüssler (Millipede) was the first truly modern transport aircraft. Intended to replace the legendary but outdated Ju 52/3m, the Ar 232 was designed by engineer Wilhelm van Nes, and made its first flight in April 1941. The aircraft included almost all of the features now considered to be standard to transport aircraft, including a low-slung, boxlike fuselage, rear loading ramp, a high tail for easy access to the hold, and various features for operating from rough fields........"

"A noticeable feature of the 232 was the landing gear. This including a tricycle gear and an additional set of eleven smaller wheels (per side), hence the nickname “Millipede.” In flight, the main legs fully retracted into the engine nacelles, while the twenty-two small wheels remained extended and the nose wheel only semi-retracted. Even fully loaded to 16,000 kg the plane could take off in 200 meters. This distance could be further improved upon with the used of RATO (rocketassisted take off ) and RAL (remote area landing)."

"The Ar 232 completely outperformed the Ju 52. It carried roughly double the load over longer distances, operated from much shorter runways and considerably worse fields if need be, and cruised about 70 km/h faster."

The aircraft was the first purposely designed military cargo aircraft. The crews had a wide field of views, was designed to operate from rough fields and was equipped with a hydraulic operated rear loading ramp. The Ar 232B was equipped with 4 engines.

This was the C-130 of its day.

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


----------



## Shortround6 (May 14, 2018)

We seem to have a few discrepancies. From WIki so.......
" Even loaded to 16,000 kg (35,270 lb), it could take-off in 200 m (656 ft)"

Please note this airplane has a bigger wing ((1,535 ft²) than either a B-17 (1,420 sq ft) or a Lancaster (1,297 sq ft ) so short take-off at 16,000kg is not a real big surprise. What is a surprise is the idea that this plane was "Even *fully loaded *to 16,000 kg " in the account you quoted. 

Wiki says empty weight was 12,780 kg (28,175 lb), useful load was 4500kg (9920lbs) and max take-off weight was 21,150 kg (46,628 lb) I know there are normal gross weights and max gross weights. 
Comparing The AR 232 to the JU 52 is like comparing a Willies jeep to model T when the actual competition is a V-8 truck. While the AR 232 could easily outperform a JU 52 (but then most anything could,including the Bristol Bombay) the AR 232 was a slow, shortranged transport compared to other "modern" transports, like the C-46. It has spent too much weight/drag on the trick landing gear. 
While the DC-5 was not used in large numbers it pioneered tricycle landing gear for transports.





First flight 1939. 

The part about "The aircraft was the *first purposely designed* military cargo aircraft" is debatable. First designed entirely from scratch perhaps but the British had a long history of cargo/passenger aircraft that used bomber wings. And one version was intended from the start for cargo. 




It would hold 24 troops in folding canvas seats along the walls. 




Hmmm, through the nose loading? granted it is just a stretcher. 

Sorry, interesting as the AR 232 may be for some of it's features, some of it's claims are just so much bombast.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (May 15, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> While the DC-5 was not used in large numbers it pioneered tricycle landing gear for transports.



I have always liked the DC5 though it seems odd to me that Douglas should build an aircraft that was so close in size and performance to its already in production DC3. Where they for different markets or was the DC5 to be the DC3s succesor.


----------



## GrauGeist (May 15, 2018)

fastmongrel said:


> I have always liked the DC5 though it seems odd to me that Douglas should build an aircraft that was so close in size and performance to its already in production DC3. Where they for different markets or was the DC5 to be the DC3s succesor.


The DC-5 was actually developed from the DB-7 bomber, so there were several differences, such as tricycle gear, a high-wing design and Wright GR-1820 Cyclones instead of the DC-3's Pratt & Whitney R-1830 Wasps.


----------



## fastmongrel (May 15, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> The DC-5 was actually developed from the DB-7 bomber



To be honest I am not seeing much similarity between the two apart from general layout of wings and undercarriage. Wings and main landing gear are different the only thing I can see that looks to be similar is the tail. Ed Heinaman designed the DB-7, David Douglas designed the DC-5.


----------



## GrauGeist (May 15, 2018)

The XC-99 doesn't look much like the B-36, either (except wings and engine config.)!


----------



## Shortround6 (May 15, 2018)

From Wiki so........
DC-5 

*Length:* 62 ft 2 in (18.96 m)
*Wingspan:* 78 ft (23.77 m)
*Height:* 19 ft 10 in (6.04 m)
*Wing area:* 824 ft² (76.55 m²)
*Empty weight:* 13,674 lb (6,243 kg)

DB-7
length 45 feet 5 inches
Wingspan 61 feet 0 inches
wing area 464 square feet
Empty weight 10,500lb approximately for prototype. 

Not sure how much one influenced the other but I don't think one was actually developed from the other.


----------



## GrauGeist (May 15, 2018)

The DB-7 was actually designed by Northrup, Douglas and Heinemann.

Heinemann went on to design the DC-5, the prototype of which, was bought by Bill Boeing.

And since I mentioned the B-36/XC-99, the wing width of 230ft. remained the same, but the lengths differed: B-36: 162ft., XC-99: 152ft. As did the height: B-36: 46' 9", XC-99: 57' 6".

And keep in mind I never said the DC-5 and DB-7 were the one and the same, I stated that the DC-5 was derived from the DB-7 - hence the difference between the DC-3 design features and the DC-5's.


----------



## Gemhorse (May 16, 2018)

Hi Grau Geist,
Yes, I was aware of the terrific damage inflicted by the fire-raids and in a way, that is one cornerstone of my point - it was working ! -They were doing horrific damage for very minimal cost, all things considered. Le May was only using a small part of his force of 700 B-29's, the first raid of a 151 aircraft took place on 27th March 1945 against airfield and support facilities on Kyushu to prevent any opposition interfering with the imminent invasion of Okinawa- Also there were a continued series of raids there throughout April & May to try and stop the kamikaze suicide attacks against the giant US Naval forces around Okinawa - He issued a new fire-raid directive in April that began an extensive city-by-city, major aviation factories etc, laying waste to vast areas, the results far outweighing the losses. By the start of August Le May's B-29 force had dramatically reduced Japan's ability to wage war, he had even dropped 13,000 acoustic & magnetic mines all around their coasts & harbours so a bloody fishing-boat couldn't even go out ! -Despite this it hadn't as yet produced the unconditional surrender the US desired - They could have waited them out...or they could invade... The cost of a million US lives-lost was but an estimation, and it could take until 1946 to complete -

Plus the Brits were already there also with their steel-decked carriers, and getting further tooled-up with their ''Tiger Force'' ready to fly out, another interesting point as the US Chief of Staff, Admiral King wasn't at all disposed to these Brits, or the Aussies & NZer's getting too involved - we two latter forces were just the old :"mopping-up force in the S.West Pacific quadrant", after US Forces went through on their 'Island-hopping' campaign - But very useful for J-Force occupation duties later on though...
Since the race for Berlin was won by the Russians, it seems it may have been a factor in Truman's decision to nuke Japan. -It was 16th July 1945 when the Manhattan scientists test-exploded the first nuke in New Mexico, and Truman was at the time at the "Potsdam Conference", where he was informed, and also briefed on the estimated casualties should Japan be invaded, so had no hesitation on giving the go-ahead. The two nukes were dropped on the 6th & the 9th of August 1945. But also on the 9th, Japan received a declaration of war from Russia. 

Seems strange to have island-hopped all the way to Japan and then not let them "shrivel-on-the-vine" a bit - They were stuffed, reconn would have shown that...
B-29's flew a total of 23,500 sorties during the Marianas operations, dropped 170,000 tons of conventional ordnance, as well as two nukes, for a total loss of 371 bombers - 
Small change compared to the RAF Bomber Command's total ETO losses of over 8000 aircraft and the experimentation that was built-up from scatch and developed the whole daylight onto 'night-precision bombing technique', something Le May borrowed, lock, stock & barrel, right down to the AN/APQ-7 'Eagle' ground-image radar used by some B-29's over Japan that came from the British developed 'H2S'. [mumble, mumble...]

Anyway, I'm grumpy about a few things WW2 but I believe there was room to move back then, but what we now have is a US that has set an unlevel playing field for nuclear weaponry. Why, they're even talking about giving them to Saudi Arabia on today's news !!

We Kiwis like a nuclear-free Pacific, even though the Japanese are still leaking vast amounts of radiation from old, damaged US designed reactors, and we too have been living under "the Nuclear Umbrella" away down here, the fallout wafts all around the Globe and we have been getting our share of it. Up until this last year, I've been living rurally for 30 odd years and there has been a noticeable change in the weather systems here, starting around 1998 where I am - Global-warming is a fact, it's real, and Trump has his head in the sand as far as the Paris Climate Club goes - Why, I still haven't heard him say a word about the Hawaii Volcanic situation, he is too busy stirring it up overseas ! - Sorry guys, there is so much I do like about USA~

Cheers, and thanks for listening to my rant ~


----------



## Marcel (May 16, 2018)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Yeah it was mostly CC and Lanc...


I'm pretty sure Readie would have argued that the spitfire was a better bomber then both

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (May 16, 2018)

Just as an aside, the CG-4 Hadrian had a loading ramp, and the Hamilcar had a nose door.


----------



## Conslaw (May 16, 2018)

My choice would be the Vought V-173 "Flying Flapjack" as well as the XF5U prototype fighter. The V-173 proof-of-concept vehicle first flew in 1942. The F5U was predicted to have a top speed of 550 MPH as well as short-take-off and landing capability. There were no real deal killers from the initial testing. It was just that the plane wasn't needed, and post-war funds were limited.


----------



## BiffF15 (May 16, 2018)

Gemhorse said:


> Anyway, I'm grumpy about a few things WW2 but I believe there was room to move back then, but what we now have is a US that has set an unlevel playing field for nuclear weaponry. Why, they're even talking about giving them to Saudi Arabia on today's news !!
> 
> We Kiwis like a nuclear-free Pacific, even though the Japanese are still leaking vast amounts of radiation from old, damaged US designed reactors, and we too have been living under "the Nuclear Umbrella" away down here, the fallout wafts all around the Globe and we have been getting our share of it. Up until this last year, I've been living rurally for 30 odd years and there has been a noticeable change in the weather systems here, starting around 1998 where I am - Global-warming is a fact, it's real, and Trump has his head in the sand as far as the Paris Climate Club goes - Why, I still haven't heard him say a word about the Hawaii Volcanic situation, he is too busy stirring it up overseas ! - Sorry guys, there is so much I do like about USA~
> 
> Cheers, and thanks for listening to my rant ~



Gemhorse,

Please leave your views on the present day US politics / media blathering out of these discussions. I’m sure you can find more like minded souls elsewhere.

V/R,
Biff

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


----------



## Marcel (May 16, 2018)

The policy here is no politics indeed. 



BiffF15 said:


> Gemhorse,
> 
> Please leave your views on the present day US politics / media blathering out of these discussions. I’m sure you can find more like minded souls elsewhere.
> 
> ...


Thanks for your help Biff, but I believe we've got moderators for that 
Please use the report function next time, okay?

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (May 16, 2018)

Marcel said:


> The policy here is no politics indeed.
> 
> 
> Thanks for your help Biff, but I believe we've got moderators for that
> Please use the report function next time, okay?



Wilco!


----------



## vikingBerserker (May 17, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> We seem to have a few discrepancies. From WIki so.......
> " Even loaded to 16,000 kg (35,270 lb), it could take-off in 200 m (656 ft)"
> 
> Please note this airplane has a bigger wing ((1,535 ft²) than either a B-17 (1,420 sq ft) or a Lancaster (1,297 sq ft ) so short take-off at 16,000kg is not a real big surprise. What is a surprise is the idea that this plane was "Even *fully loaded *to 16,000 kg " in the account you quoted.
> ...



I think the DC-5 is under rated, but even Boeing states it also was designed as a passenger aircraft (Boeing: Historical Snapshot: DC-5 Commercial Transport) however, it was later retrofitted to carry cargo. 

Now in regards to the Vickers Victoria, to quote from _Canadian Warbird & War Prize Survivors: Updated Edition_ by Harold A Skaarup

"Vickers Victoria - Designed from the outset as a troop-carrying transport,....." I am also not sure how you can fit a jeep or a cannon through the tiny door in front.

I am not sure why you keep bringing up passengers plans retrofitted to carry cargo as proof the Ar 232 was not the first purposely designed military cargo aircraft. It would be fairly easy to dispute it by finding one that was specifically designed from the beginning as a military cargo aircraft (which IMHO is what made it so innovative) before the Ar 232. I have yet to find it and yes I have looked.

In regards to the stats listed in Wiki, first of all it's Wiki. Give me 5 minutes and can I update it where the Ar 232 was the first aircraft to land on the moon and was powered by a small herd of squirrels. The stats I listed in the prior post agree with what is published in _Warplanes of the Third Reich_ by Green (page 49) and _German Aircraft of the Second World War_ by Smith and Kay (page 39). Please note however, there was a drastic difference between the AR 232A (2 engines) which was the first one evaluated and flew in 1941 and the AR 232B (4 engines) which first flew in 1942.

The AR 232A/B was not designed for long range.

So, lets get down to the facts and data.
1 - Until proof otherwise, the Ar 232 was the first aircraft specifically designed from the beginning as a military cargo aircraft.
2 - Equipped with a large hydraulic operated door/ramp almost the full width of the cargo bay in the rear that allowed large objects to be loaded directly onto the cargo bay.
3 - While being loaded, the main landing gear could be semi retracted lowering the aircraft until it rested on the 11 pairs of small idler wheels. This allowed the freight floor to be lowered to truck-bed height thus expediting loading and unloading.
4 - It could land on non-prepared or rough fields.
5 - It could taxi on the small idler wheels and cross ditches up to 5 feet wide.
6 - During early trials, the AR 232A carried 2 x PKW Field cars with 8 soldiers.
7 - It could take off in very short distances while loaded (200 ft for the AR 232A mentioned earlier)
8 - The idler wheels could be replaced with a ski 26' x 7'10" to operate in snow (used in Norway).
9 - The tail was set high to not impede the loading/unloading.
9 - It could be equipped with rockets to assist on take off.
10 - Armed with 2 x 13mm MG, 1 x 20mm Cannon and up to 8 x MG 34's if carrying troops.

Name an aircraft up to 1941 that could compare with it.

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


----------



## Shortround6 (May 17, 2018)

We seem to be arguing over _passenger _transport and _cargo_ transport in order for the Ar 232 to help maintain it's place. 

Vickers Vernon was arguably the first military passenger transport. 





It is credited with the first strategic troop movement in Feb 1923 when 2 squadrons air lifted almost 500 troops. 
The Victoria pictured in previous post is described as having "folding Canvas seats along the walls", now why would a passenger plane have seats that fold up to make more room unless it was also planned to carry cargo? 




Yep, I can see how this plane is so high that it is difficult to load from truck bed height. Please also see height of the DC-5 and DH Flamingo on the ground or most any high wing transport plane. With a high wing the props can be clear of the ground and yet the floor can be at a reasonable height. Trick, kneeling landing gear is not really needed. 

While these old biplanes had large wings they also had small engines which limited payload. Everything had to start somewhere and the idea for front or rear loading is the same. 
The British had a long history of combination bomber/transports, that is transports that bomb racks _under the fuselage_ so roles could be changed in very short order. Not different versions of the same plane. perhaps this is why they don't get credit for "military transports"? the planes are considered bombers? 




Bristol Bombay at Crete. Crappy door for cargo but hight isn't too bad. Plane would hold 24 troops, how many does the AR 232 hold again?





Interior, note folding/removable seating. 

From 1938 Jane's All the World's aircraft; "......there is accommodation for twenty-four fully armed troops. For transport duties a special arrangement of the fuselage framing round the entrance doors allows for a larger entrance to the machine for the loading of bulky or heavy goods; for which special ladong arrangements are provided." 
Flight magazine has an article: 1939 | 1- - 0364 | Flight Archive
Which shows the special arrangement (part of the fuselage holding the normal door is removable) and a picture shows loading a spare aircraft engine into the fuselage using an overhead crane/track system. 

BTW, planes using skis was nothing new. It had been being done for over ten years.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Skydog (May 17, 2018)

P-39 and B29, they are locked into a deadheat for the entire war. Me 262 never really accomplished much, so I toss it out for that reason alone.


----------



## swampyankee (May 17, 2018)

Skydog said:


> P-39 and B29, they are locked into a deadheat for the entire war. Me 262 never really accomplished much, so I toss it out for that reason alone.



I don't think success has much to do with an aircraft being innovative; many quite innovative aircraft were deservedly forgotten. 

There were a lot of detail design innovations in the P-51, but the general configuration was quite standard; the Mosquito's innovation was less in the configuration than in the elimination of defensive armament for speed. The P-39 had the significant innovation of a misplaced mid-mounted engine and tricycle landing gear.


The Me262 is not within the purview of the OP's question. However, it did _not_ have a swept wing because of compressibility; it had swept wings because of center of gravity issues. (https://info.aiaa.org/Regions/Weste...Enrique P. Castro/Phil_Barnes_German Jets.pdf)


----------



## vikingBerserker (May 29, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> We seem to be arguing over _passenger _transport and _cargo_ transport in order for the Ar 232 to help maintain it's place.



Not really, the statement I am defending or trying to prove out "was the first aircraft specifically designed from the beginning as a military cargo aircraft". IMO, there is a big difference between passengers with bags or troops with their packs and cargo such as jeeps, pallets of ammo etc. There is also a difference between a passenger aircraft modified to carry troops or cargo and one that was designed from the very beginning as one which again is what the statement says.




Shortround6 said:


> Vickers Vernon was arguably the first military passenger transport.
> 
> It is credited with the first strategic troop movement in Feb 1923 when 2 squadrons air lifted almost 500 troops.
> The Victoria pictured in previous post is described as having "folding Canvas seats along the walls", now why would a passenger plane have seats that fold up to make more room unless it was also planned to carry cargo?



I'd agree with it being the first troop carrier and in regards to the seats there are several reasons, one of which you even posted a picture of. First of all the folding canvas seats are lighter, it allows faster loading and unloading of troops with their packs (seats are folded and moved out of the way) and lastly it would allow it to carry stretchers.



Shortround6 said:


> Yep, I can see how this plane is so high that it is difficult to load from truck bed height. Please also see height of the DC-5 and DH Flamingo on the ground or most any high wing transport plane. With a high wing the props can be clear of the ground and yet the floor can be at a reasonable height. Trick, kneeling landing gear is not really needed.


Ok, and both were designed as passenger airliners and neither one to what I have read could operate on the front from unprepared fields.



Shortround6 said:


> While these old biplanes had large wings they also had small engines which limited payload. Everything had to start somewhere and the idea for front or rear loading is the same.
> The British had a long history of combination bomber/transports, that is transports that bomb racks _under the fuselage_ so roles could be changed in very short order. Not different versions of the same plane. perhaps this is why they don't get credit for "military transports"? the planes are considered bombers?
> 
> Bristol Bombay at Crete. Crappy door for cargo but hight isn't too bad. Plane would hold 24 troops, how many does the AR 232 hold again?



The French were big proponents of a single aircraft having multiple multiple rolls. The B-17 and Lancaster made great bombers, but were poor passenger aircraft. Jack of all trades, but master of none. Now some qualities of specific types of aircraft are useful in other areas. A typical fighter will be good at racing and acrobats, a bomber designed to carry tons of bombs can carry troops/cargo if space permits. 

The Ar 232 could carry up to 48 troops per _Arado Ar 232 "Tatzelworm"_ by Kranzhoff in overload (page 2)



Shortround6 said:


> From 1938 Jane's All the World's aircraft; "......there is accommodation for twenty-four fully armed troops. For transport duties a special arrangement of the fuselage framing round the entrance doors allows for a larger entrance to the machine for the loading of bulky or heavy goods; for which special ladong arrangements are provided."
> Flight magazine has an article: 1939 | 1- - 0364 | Flight Archive
> Which shows the special arrangement (part of the fuselage holding the normal door is removable) and a picture shows loading a spare aircraft engine into the fuselage using an overhead crane/track system.



I read the article and love the Bombay. It states on page 103 that it was "designed for troop-carrying, bombing or transporting engines and provisions". How exactly do you get a vehicle larger than a motorcycle on and off of? The Ar 232 also had an overhead hoist so that had that in common.



Shortround6 said:


> BTW, planes using skis was nothing new. It had been being done for over ten years.


Planes have also used engines and wings for a longer prior as well, not sure what point you are trying to make. The ski on the Ar 232 could be used to help get the aircraft unstuck in deep mud or deep - something the ski was not typically used for on other aircraft.

The Ar 232 was designed for one thing and one thing only, to drop off and pickup troops/cargo on the front lines.
If you look at the tactical military cargo aircraft in use today such as the Lockheed C-130, the Antonov An-22, Aeritalie G.222 and Airbus A400M you will see a lot in common with the Ar 232:

High lift wing
built in loading Ramp on the end of the cargo hold
large cargo hold
Able to operate from rough/unprepared landing fields
Able to carry large items such as vehicles or wheeled cannons
Multiple wheels to help distribute weight
STOL capability (interestingly it was also designed to use retro rockets and/or parachutes to slow down on landing - page 5).

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## jetcal1 (May 29, 2018)

My nomination is the P-38. Not all innovative changes are straight technological advances. It could be argued that with its first flight only four months after the 1938 Munich Agreement the P-38 brought the following procedural and technical changes into one airframe while only lacking cabin pressurization. 
1. Required flight management due to compressibility and range management
2. Required system management due to turbocharging
3. Tricycle Landing gear
4. Hydraulically powered flight control (Ailerons in later models)
5. Extraordinarily dense systems layout presaging modern turbine powered fighters making maintenance practices extraordinarily important compared to contemporary aircraft
6. Difficult to build


----------



## Shortround6 (May 30, 2018)

My contention for the British build the first military transports (even if they wouldn't hold a truck) is based on the following.
*Armstrong Whitworth A.W.23* 








the above mentioned Bristol Bombay. 




The Handley-Page HP 51





all built to specification C.26/31
Now part of the problem was that when first flown none of them had engines of much over 700hp and all of them used fixed pitch propellers which rather obviously limits payload and take-off. I don't think you are going to get much of truck off the ground with powerplants like that. 

The AS 23 got a skinny fuselage and was turned into the Whitley bomber and when used to drop paratroops certainly left something to be desired. 
The HP 51 was turned into the HP 54 Harrow




With a rather oversized fuselage for the carriage of 2-3000lbs of bombs.
Production Harrows got 925hp engines, Production Bombays got 1010hp engines. 
Not really enough for carrying vehicles no matter what other kinds of military goods they were supposed to handle. 
Six years and either a pair of 1600hp or four 1200hp engines can make a huge difference in the size and capability of a transport plane. 
I would note that most (all?) British military planes of the time were expected to operate out of standard 500yd RAF airfields. 
The definition of STOL has changed over time, in the early to mid 30s just about every plane was STOL


----------



## KiwiBiggles (May 30, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> My contention for the British build the first military transports (even if they wouldn't hold a truck) is based on the following.
> *Armstrong Whitworth A.W.23*
> View attachment 495660
> 
> ...


When the Bombay wing (and undercarriage, I think) finally got a decent engine, the Hercules, Bristol were able to give it a proper cargo fuselage, and make the Bristol Freighter.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (May 31, 2018)

davebender said:


> I agree. Mid engine. The Ferrari of WWII fighter aircraft.
> 
> Unfortunately the execution was poor. Fix the airframe handling issues, replace the Allison engine with a RR Merlin engine and replace the unreliable hub cannon with an MG151/20. Then we'd all be debating whether the 1942 P-39 was superior to the Spitfire Vb and Me-109F4. 8)


P-39 Performance Tests
I think that if you look at the performance of a 1942/43 produced P-39N then you should be able to agree that it is superior to the Spitfire FVc/LVc when employed to provide air superiority for any allied army in the field.


----------



## swampyankee (May 31, 2018)

fastmongrel said:


> I have always liked the DC5 though it seems odd to me that Douglas should build an aircraft that was so close in size and performance to its already in production DC3. Where they for different markets or was the DC5 to be the DC3s succesor.



The DC-4E, with tricycle gear, preceded the DC-5 into the air, but never entered service.


----------



## Vincenzo (May 31, 2018)

No one nominèe the Fw 190?


----------



## swampyankee (May 31, 2018)

Vincenzo said:


> No one nominèe the Fw 190?



Well, it wasn’t innovative. It was a good design, but not innovative.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Disagree Disagree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Vincenzo (May 31, 2018)

time ago, when i was young, i read somewhere that was called the electric fighter


----------



## fastmongrel (Jun 1, 2018)

Kevin J said:


> P-39 Performance Tests
> I think that if you look at the performance of a 1942/43 produced P-39N then you should be able to agree that it is superior to the Spitfire FVc/LVc when employed to provide air superiority for any allied army in the field.



1943 the Spitfire V wasnt the main air superiority fighter it was being replaced by the MkVII, MkVIII and MkIX

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Jun 1, 2018)

Mk.XII as well in Feb. '43 though I believe less than 200 were built


----------



## drgondog (Jun 1, 2018)

Gemhorse said:


> Hi Grau Geist,
> Yes, I was aware of the terrific damage inflicted by the fire-raids and in a way, that is one cornerstone of my point - it was working ! -They were doing horrific damage for very minimal cost, all things considered. Le May was only using a small part of his force of 700 B-29's, the first raid of a 151 aircraft took place on 27th March 1945 against airfield and support facilities on Kyushu to prevent any opposition interfering with the imminent invasion of Okinawa- Also there were a continued series of raids there throughout April & May to try and stop the kamikaze suicide attacks against the giant US Naval forces around Okinawa - He issued a new fire-raid directive in April that began an extensive city-by-city, major aviation factories etc, laying waste to vast areas, the results far outweighing the losses. By the start of August Le May's B-29 force had dramatically reduced Japan's ability to wage war, he had even dropped 13,000 acoustic & magnetic mines all around their coasts & harbours so a bloody fishing-boat couldn't even go out ! -Despite this it hadn't as yet produced the unconditional surrender the US desired - They could have waited them out...or they could invade... The cost of a million US lives-lost was but an estimation, and it could take until 1946 to complete -
> 
> Plus the Brits were already there also with their steel-decked carriers, and getting further tooled-up with their ''Tiger Force'' ready to fly out, another interesting point as the US Chief of Staff, Admiral King wasn't at all disposed to these Brits, or the Aussies & NZer's getting too involved - we two latter forces were just the old :"mopping-up force in the S.West Pacific quadrant", after US Forces went through on their 'Island-hopping' campaign - But very useful for J-Force occupation duties later on though...
> ...



There is so much speculation and conjecture woven into a condemnation of US Policy that I have shied away from confrontation - almost.

First - You are extremely cavalier about the Enormous Loss of life that US political leaders and warfighters KNEW they were facing, to ignore the shock and awe that Littleboy and Fat Man brought home to the Emperor. Dropping the Bombs was still not a guarantee that Japan would capitulate. What DID happen is that Japan leaders were confronted with extinction - with no honor.

From our perspective, the price of 100,000+ plus KIA and hundreds of thousands of innocent women and children arising from those two events was contrast against the Certainty that the Japanese people and leaders would fight to the death against any invasion by any nation. Period. And it nigh certain that the Allies would lose ~ 1M plus in the process, but Japan would nearly cease to exist based on our experience at Guadalcanal, Tarawa, Iwo and Okinawa, That is just the calculus for Japanese Losses - not our own.

Put it in some contrast - would you reverse the decision and agree to sacrifice ANZUS troops and civilians by making them 'available' for the spearhead of the mainline invasion - until there were no more? For the greater good of Your ethical persuasion? Then throw in the rest of the Allies to finish the job - only to have a guaranteed confrontation of USSR decided to claim parts of Japan as a tithe against their sacrifices.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
5 | Winner Winner:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Jun 1, 2018)

swampyankee said:


> I don't think success has much to do with an aircraft being innovative; many quite innovative aircraft were deservedly forgotten.
> 
> There were a lot of detail design innovations in the P-51, but the general configuration was quite standard; the Mosquito's innovation was less in the configuration than in the elimination of defensive armament for speed. The P-39 had the significant innovation of a misplaced mid-mounted engine and tricycle landing gear.
> 
> ...


If you ignore a.) the breakthrough Low Drag airfoil, b.) the design and implementation of Meridith effect for radiator/oil cooler stems which Reduced cooling drag over conventional fighter designs and c.) the first external fuselage design using second order conics to minimize form drag, then I suppose the P-51 wasn't very innovative.

I suppose the operative distinction was 'general configuration' versus detail design - but the General configuration was quite innovative, the detail design made it work.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 1, 2018)

drgondog said:


> There is so much speculation and conjecture woven into a condemnation of US Policy that I have shied away from confrontation - almost.
> 
> First - You are extremely cavalier about the Enormous Loss of life that US political leaders and warfighters KNEW they were facing, to ignore the shock and awe that Tallboy and Fat Man brought home to the Emperor. Dropping the Bombs was still not a guarantee that Japan would capitulate. What DID happen is that Japan leaders were confronted with extinction - with no honor.
> 
> ...


It wasn't just ANZUS troops that would have died. My favourite uncle was pencilled in for the invasion, and I'm sure my Dad would have been called up to go too. I'm with Truman and his decision, right or wrong in history, as it may have been.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Ascent (Jun 1, 2018)

I would suggest that the Defiant and Roc were both innovative designs. A fighter with no forward firing weapons but a turret for all round fire? Just because it wasn't successful doesn't mean it wasn't innovative.

By the same token the Airacuda was an innovative design but that isn't really a WWII aircraft.

These were all innovative designs to a problem that was thought to exist but turned out not to. Also they were arguably ahead of their time, the technology wasn't advanced enough for the weapon system as a whole to work.

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jun 4, 2018)

drgondog said:


> First - You are extremely cavalier about the Enormous Loss of life that US political leaders and warfighters KNEW they were facing, to ignore the shock and awe that Tallboy and Fat Man brought home to the Emperor. Dropping the Bombs was still not a guarantee that Japan would capitulate. What DID happen is that Japan leaders were confronted with extinction - with no honor.



While the Tallboy may have produced shock and awe if it were ever used in Japan, I don't think it would have compared to that produced by Little Boy.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Jun 5, 2018)

drgondog said:


> If you ignore a.) the breakthrough Low Drag airfoil, b.) the design and implementation of Meridith effect for radiator/oil cooler stems which Reduced cooling drag over conventional fighter designs and c.) the first external fuselage design using second order conics to minimize form drag, then I suppose the P-51 wasn't very innovative.
> 
> I suppose the operative distinction was 'general configuration' versus detail design - but the General configuration was quite innovative, the detail design made it work.



Bill,

You have a very good point! Until now I had been of the mindset that “innovative “ meant something very different “looking” than the standard, like a pusher or even the P-39 / P-63. In reality the Mustang combined many innovations into what amounts to the standard layout (front engined puller, low wing, all or mostly metal construction, tail dragger) into excellent results.

I just needed to free myself from a certain mindset to see your point!

Cheers,
Biff


----------



## Peter Gunn (Jun 5, 2018)

Kevin J said:


> It wasn't just ANZUS troops that would have died. My favourite uncle was pencilled in for the invasion, and I'm sure my Dad would have been called up to go too. I'm with Truman and his decision, right or wrong in history, as it may have been.



AMEN. My father and a one of his brothers had been shuttled from the ETO to the Pacific for the coming invasion and another uncle was already in the Pacific at Saipan flying P-61's. None of them had any qualms about Truman's decision believe me.

But more to the point of the thread, while yes I'm a dyed in the wool Mustang lover so maybe that nullifies my vote which, for the reasons drgondog stated, goes to the P-51. Hell on range alone I find it pretty awesome, not because it carried so much fuel, it's that it used it more efficiently as well.

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## P-39 Expert (Jun 12, 2018)

fastmongrel said:


> 1943 the Spitfire V wasnt the main air superiority fighter it was being replaced by the MkVII, MkVIII and MkIX


Hard to compare the P-39N with the two stage Spitfire IX et al. 
But it does compare very favorably with the 109, 190, Zero, Oscar, Hellcat, Corsair, Lightning F/G etc.


----------



## fubar57 (Jun 12, 2018)

LMAO

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## tomo pauk (Jun 12, 2018)

What Geo said.


----------



## Kevin J (Jun 12, 2018)

P-39 Expert said:


> Hard to compare the P-39N with the two stage Spitfire IX et al.
> But it does compare very favorably with the 109, 190, Zero, Oscar, Hellcat, Corsair, Lightning F/G etc.


Yes, being replaced with Spitfires powered by two stage Merlins with comparable performances below 4000 metres.


----------



## michael rauls (Jul 15, 2018)

Most innovative aircraft is fascinating in an aicraft can be innovative even if it is not a particularly good performer. The p-59 comes to mind. Other picks that were all good performers by contrast to my first example might be the p51 for its laminar flow wing, the p47 for its unique turbo-supercharger planform, or the me 262 for its combination of jet propulsion and swept wing( I believe it was the first to combine these two but would be fascinated to know if it was not)

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 15, 2018)

michael rauls said:


> Most innovative aircraft is fascinating in an aicraft can be innovative even if it is not a particularly good performer. The p-59 comes to mind. Other picks that were all good performers by contrast to my first example might be the p51 for its laminar flow wing, the p47 for its unique turbo-supercharger planform, or the me 262 for its combination of jet propulsion and swept wing( I believe it was the first to combine these two but would be fascinated to know if it was not)


The Me262's "swept" wing was in order to correct CoG issues.
The Me262 didn't offer much in the way of innovation, as it wasn't the first combat jet to fly - that goes to the Heinkel He280, who's first flight was in 1940, a year before the 262's first flight (under piston power) and two years before the 262's first flight under jet power.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Jul 15, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> The Me262's "swept" wing was in order to correct CoG issues.
> The Me262 didn't offer much in the way of innovation, as it wasn't the first combat jet to fly - that goes to the Heinkel He280, who's first flight was in 1940, a year before the 262's first flight (under piston power) and two years before the 262's first flight under jet power.


 Wow the 262s wing design was to correct center of gravity isues ( if I understand that corectly) Was that a case of adressing one issue but also getting an additional benefit i.e. sweeping the wing back to address a cog issue and getting better high speed caracteristics that a swept wing would ,at least as is my impression, afford.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 15, 2018)

michael rauls said:


> Wow the 262s wing design was to correct center of gravity isues ( if I understand that corectly) Was that a case of adressing one issue but also getting an additional benefit i.e. sweeping the wing back to address a cog issue and getting better high speed caracteristics that a swept wing would ,at least as is my impression, afford.


The 262's original design called for the engines to be inboard on the wings, but complications with the engines caused a redesign and the wings were moved back 12° from it's original plans.
There may have been a certain advantage to having a swept wing, but any speed advantage over the original design was negated when the engines were mounted under the wing.

The He280 had appreciable performance with it's semi-elliptical wings and since all first-gen WWII jets operated at speeds below Mach, the sweep was not a nessecary factor.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## drgondog (Jul 15, 2018)

michael rauls said:


> Wow the 262s wing design was to correct center of gravity isues ( if I understand that corectly) Was that a case of adressing one issue but also getting an additional benefit i.e. sweeping the wing back to address a cog issue and getting better high speed caracteristics that a swept wing would ,at least as is my impression, afford.


 13% sweep insufficient to bestow more than a couple of mph delay on compressibility but adequate to move CP aft far enough to permit a full aft fuselage fuel tank. 

Absent that approach, the choices for original wing/fuselage attach (bulkhead, spar carry through, etc) moving aft for unmodified wing to achieve the same result - are ugly, expensive and time consuming.

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


----------



## michael rauls (Jul 15, 2018)

drgondog said:


> 13% sweep insufficient to bestow more than a couple of mph delay on compressibility but adequate to move CP aft far enough to permit a full aft fuselage fuel tank.
> 
> Absent that approach, the choices for original wing/fuselage attach (bulkhead, spar carry through, etc) moving aft for unmodified wing to achieve the same result - are ugly, expensive and time consuming.


 Yes I was thinking more in terms of delay of compressabilty as a possible benefit of a swept wing but all fascinating information. Thank you.


----------



## michael rauls (Jul 15, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> The 262's original design called for the engines to be inboard on the wings, but complications with the engines caused a redesign and the wings were moved back 12° from it's original plans.
> There may have been a certain advantage to having a swept wing, but any speed advantage over the original design was negated when the engines were mounted under the wing.
> 
> The He280 had appreciable performance with it's semi-elliptical wings and since all first-gen WWII jets operated at speeds below Mach, the sweep was not a nessecary factor.


 I have read( yes I am becoming cautious about using that phrase around here) It is however, the best I can do on this question so here goes. I have read that Galland had nothing but superlative things to say about the me 262. Do you know if he pushed hard for its development and deployment to be sped up and was just hindered by the"polititions" so to speak?


----------



## Kevin J (Jul 15, 2018)

michael rauls said:


> I have read( yes I am becoming cautious about using that phrase around here) It is however, the best I can do on this question so here goes. I have read that Galland had nothing but superlative things to say about the me 262. Do you know if he pushed hard for its development and deployment to be sped up and was just hindered by the"polititions" so to speak?


Standard procedure for the German military in WW1 and WW2 was to blame everyone but themselves.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 15, 2018)

michael rauls said:


> Yes I was thinking more in terms of delay of compressabilty as a possible benefit of a swept wing but all fascinating information. Thank you.


The Germans were well aware of sweep in terms of Transonic flight as seen by their latewar designs, but none of their current engines were capable of pushing beyond that threshhold in level flight.

Some aircraft that incorporated an intentional swept design were the Messerschmitt HGIII (Me262 successor), Ta183, Me P.1101 (see the postwar Bell X-5) and the DFS346 to name a few examples.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 15, 2018)

michael rauls said:


> I have read( yes I am becoming cautious about using that phrase around here) It is however, the best I can do on this question so here goes. I have read that Galland had nothing but superlative things to say about the me 262. Do you know if he pushed hard for its development and deployment to be sped up and was just hindered by the"polititions" so to speak?


Galland was most certainly an outspoken advocate of the Me262 - to the point of pissing off Hitler.

He did have a large part in keeping the Me262A-1 design in production after Messerschmitt tried to appease Hitler by declaring the Me262 would make a good "Schnell bomber", which it wasn't originally designed to do. If Willy had told Hitler "no", then things may have been a little different in the 262's timeline AND at the time that Willy was sucking up to Hitler, the Ar234 was coming online - which WAS a true Schnell bomber...

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Jul 15, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> Galland was most certainly an outspoken advocate of the Me262 - to the point of pissing off Hitler.
> 
> He did have a large part in keeping the Me262A-1 design in production after Messerschmitt tried to appease Hitler by declaring the Me262 would make a good "Schnell bomber", which it wasn't originally designed to do. If Willy had told Hitler "no", then things may have been a little different in the 262's timeline AND at the time that Willy was sucking up to Hitler, the Ar234 was coming online - which WAS a true Schnell bomber...


 I have always susspected that must have been the case( the part about Galland pushing for the 262 I mean) and being stymied by the political structure but never could find anything about that specificly. All fascinating information. Thank you!


----------



## Milosh (Jul 15, 2018)

Want to know about the Me262, then read the 4 vol. tome by Smith/Creek from Classic.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Jul 15, 2018)

Milosh said:


> Want to know about the Me262, then read the 4 vol. tome by Smith/Creek from Classic.


 Thanks for the reading ssuggestion. I seem to be compiling quite a list and that's a good thing.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 16, 2018)

michael rauls said:


> Thanks for the reading ssuggestion. I seem to be compiling quite a list and that's a good thing.


Another book on the Me262 that's good reading, is "The Me 262 Stormbird" by Colin Heaton and Anne-Marie Lewis, which not only covers the technical aspects, but has conversations with the Me262 pilots.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Jul 16, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> Another book on the Me262 that's good reading, is "The Me 262 Stormbird" by Colin Heaton and Anne-Marie Lewis, which not only covers the technical aspects, but has conversations with the Me262 pilots.


 That sounds like a must have. I am a sucker for reading pilots opinion and experiences for any plane but for the 262 thats really got to be interesting.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 16, 2018)

michael rauls said:


> That sounds like a must have. I am a sucker for reading pilots opinion and experiences for any plane but for the 262 thats really got to be interesting.


One of my favorite books regarding the Me262 in my library is the complete listing of all Me262 airframes ever made from the prototype to the final airframes made during the first week of May, 1945.
Boring for some, but it's a wealth of info, to be honest.


----------



## michael rauls (Jul 16, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> One of my favorite books regarding the Me262 in my library is the complete listing of all Me262 airframes ever made from the prototype to the final airframes made during the first week of May, 1945.
> Boring for some, but it's a wealth of info, to be honest.


 Looks like I'm gonna need another room adition................To house all my new books of course


----------



## michael rauls (Jul 16, 2018)

In all seriousness, great suggestions all. Thank you.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Jul 16, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> The Germans were well aware of sweep in terms of Transonic flight as seen by their latewar designs, but none of their current engines were capable of pushing beyond that threshhold in level flight.
> 
> Some aircraft that incorporated an intentional swept design were the Messerschmitt HGIII (Me262 successor), Ta183, Me P.1101 (see the postwar Bell X-5) and the DFS346 to name a few examples.




Sweep was known to the international community by 1935; high speed flight was an active area of research. Google, for a start, the Fifth Volta Conference. Robert Jones did work on sweep during WWII and before.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 16, 2018)

swampyankee said:


> Sweep was known to the international community by 1935; high speed flight was an active area of research. Google, for a start, the Fifth Volta Conference. Robert Jones did work on sweep during WWII and before.


Yes, a swept design was known and originally, it for different reasons.

However, it wasn't until midwar that the Germans took the swept wing design seriously.


----------



## michael rauls (Jul 16, 2018)

Just a question for any of you with more knowledge on aerodynamics than myself. I know this is a little off topic but i hope thats ok. Is it true that as G forces increase the speed that compresability will be reached comes down. I've been trying to get a good handle on compresability and how it might affect high speed maneuver beyong just an absolute speed limitation.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 16, 2018)

michael rauls said:


> Just a question for any of you with more knowledge on aerodynamics than myself. I know this is a little off topic but i hope thats ok. Is it true that as G forces increase the speed that compresability will be reached comes down. I've been trying to get a good handle on compresability and how it might affect high speed maneuver beyong just an absolute speed limitation.


 When G forces increase, either in turn or dive recovery, energy (and speed) are reduced.

In WWII, any asymmetric maneuver in transonic state invites structural failure.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Jul 16, 2018)

drgondog said:


> When G forces increase, either in turn or dive recovery, energy (and speed) are reduced.
> 
> In WWII, any asymmetric maneuver in transonic state invites structural failure.


 Thanks for taking the time to answer my question. I should have provided a bit more context as far as the what the information I was seeking was relevant to. I'm trying to understand why the p51 had better high speed maneuverability. My thought process was that it had a higher critical mach number than most of its contemporaries so this would allow maneuvers or to exert g forces to put it another way at higher speeds. Am I on the write track here or were the better high speed handling characteristics due to another dynamic entirely. Thanks again.


----------



## michael rauls (Jul 17, 2018)

If I'm not on the right tract I guess I'm looking ro be pointed in the write direction as to what to study to understand the why of the 51s better high speed characteristics


----------



## KiwiBiggles (Jul 17, 2018)

michael rauls said:


> Thanks for taking the time to answer my question. I should have provided a bit more context as far as the what the information I was seeking was relevant to. I'm trying to understand why the p51 had better high speed maneuverability. My thought process was that it had a higher critical mach number than most of its contemporaries so this would allow maneuvers or to exert g forces to put it another way at higher speeds. Am I on the write track here or were the better high speed handling characteristics due to another dynamic entirely. Thanks again.


What makes you think the P-51 had "better high speed maneuverability"? It had low drag and therefore high speed for its power, but its limiting Mach number was lower than that of the Spitfire, which had generally better manoeuverability anyway.

And to your original question, whether increasing G forces changes compressibility, I suppose it would to some extent in that a high G force implies higher lift over the wing, therefore higher circulation and faster airflow over the upper surface. So in theory an aircraft flying just below its compressibility limit could exceed the limit if it pulled some G. I have no idea whether this is a real effect in practice.


----------



## pbehn (Jul 17, 2018)

I think some things are purely relative, if the speed is high enough just the ability to pull out of a dive counts as "good maneuverabilty" as compared to a plane that just continues into the ground.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## michael rauls (Jul 17, 2018)

KiwiBiggles said:


> What makes you think the P-51 had "better high speed maneuverability"? It had low drag and therefore high speed for its power, but its limiting Mach number was lower than that of the Spitfire, which had generally better manoeuverability anyway.
> 
> And to your original question, whether increasing G forces changes compressibility, I suppose it would to some extent in that a high G force implies higher lift over the wing, therefore higher circulation and faster airflow over the upper surface. So in theory an aircraft flying just below its compressibility limit could exceed the limit if it pulled some G. I have no idea whether this is a real effect in practice.


 I have always thought that because it's something that I have read several times including one quote from a p51 pilot. Wish i could cite the exact sources right now but alas my memory is not that good. Maybe maneuverability isn't the best word but just that it could continue to turn/ roll/lower stick force etc more effectively than most other contemporaries as speed increased. I believe you are right about the spitfire having an even slightly higher critical mach( wish I could remember the exact numbers right now) so i always asumed it would posses these same qualities if my theory is right. My theory, maybe I can put it more clearly, is that if increased g force brings down the speed of compresability and the manuvering limitations that seem to happen even a bit before that absolute limit(again just what I've read, certainly no expert myself) then increased critical mach would provide more " headroom" so to speak for high speed maneuver i.e. it wouldn't run into these troubles until higher speed. I guess i wasn't so clear about describing my theory on the first try. Interested to know if I'm on the right track or if it had to do with more of a drag to lift( probably a simplistic way to put it) kinda thing.


----------



## michael rauls (Jul 17, 2018)

If I could add; then the more g forces exerted, the more this would become a factor. If my theory is correct that is.


----------



## michael rauls (Jul 17, 2018)

pbehn said:


> I think some things are purely relative, if the speed is high enough just the ability to pull out of a dive counts as "good maneuverabilty" as compared to a plane that just continues into the ground.


 That was sort of my thoughts. That if g force brings down the speed of compresability then the aircraft with a higher critical mach could continue to " maneuver" it higher speeds and the rate at which this would be a factor would corespond with the increasing g forces.


----------



## swampyankee (Jul 17, 2018)

michael rauls said:


> If I'm not on the right tract I guess I'm looking ro be pointed in the write direction as to what to study to understand the why of the 51s better high speed characteristics




One part is that the airfoils had a greater critical Mach number than those on the Spitfire

As an aside, the critical Mach number for the Spitfire was due to shocks around the cockpit.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## P-39 Expert (Jul 19, 2018)

ivan grga said:


> Hi, even I do think that Soviet WW2 fighters had been pretty much underrated, they could not be compared to Bf109 in terms of advanced design (not only Poli, but other ,too).
> So, let hear "in their own words" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 - Wikipedia)
> In 1943, Oberfeldwebel Edmund Roßmann got lost and landed behind Soviet lines. He agreed to show the Soviets how to service the plane. Soviet machine gun technician Viktor M. Sinaisky recalled:
> The Messer was a very well designed plane. First, it had an engine of an inverted type, so it could not be knocked out from below. It also had two water radiators with a cut-off system: if one radiator leaked you could fly on the second or close both down and fly at least five minutes more. The pilot was protected by armour-plate from the back, and the fuel tank was also behind armour. Our planes had fuel tanks in the centre of their wings: that's why our pilot got burnt. What else did I like about the Messer? It was highly automatic and thus easy to fly. It also employed an electrical pitch regulator, which our planes didn't have. Our propeller system, with variable pitch was hydraulic, making it impossible to change pitch without engine running. If, God forbid, you turned off the engine at high pitch, it was impossible to turn the propeller and was very hard to start the engine again. Finally, the German ammo counter was also a great thing.[29]
> ...



All true, but that narrow landing gear made the 109 a bitch to land, it never had sufficient fuel, the canopy was hard to see out of, and armement was deficient until larger bore cannon in the engine and canon in the wings.


----------



## Supermarine-SpitfireMkXIV (Jul 22, 2018)

Njaco said:


> hmmmm, Me 262, He 163...hmmmmm?


He said PISTON powered aircraft!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## fubar57 (Jul 22, 2018)

Supermarine-SpitfireMkXIV said:


> He said PISTON powered aircraft!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



You do realize Chris was making light of another member, even highlighted it in the quote.......

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Milosh (Jul 22, 2018)

P-39 Expert said:


> All true, but that *narrow landing gear made the 109 a bitch to land*, it never had sufficient fuel, the canopy was hard to see out of, and armement was deficient until larger bore cannon in the engine and canon in the wings.



Only when the landing gear touched the ground.

You don't know that the 109E had 20mm cannon in the wings?

The track of the Spitfire was narrower than that of the 109.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 22, 2018)

ivan grga said:


> which makes Bf109 incredibly advanced and actually from the very beginning. Most of key principles were introduced from the point zero. Take as an example a cannon int he fuselage. Today, all aircraft have the main cannon in the fuselage from very obvious reasons. No doubt, every fighter commander and every soldier would like to have central cannon – but to make it happen, an aircraft should be designed from the beginning around it – just as it was at Me109 case – “Motorkanone” was a design requirement! So, this is true with all other main design characteristics of Bf 109, this is how aircraft are being built today: all wings are clean and without guns, all wings designed are for high energy dog fight, with high AoA ( with leading edge slats, or LERX , or..), all aircraft are multi mode - with different underwing weapon mix, all fighters are designed to be interceptors and bombers; there are no aircraft with landing gear attached to the wings; all piston engines are injected, no more _carburetors_, all engines are single stick controlled, superchargers are variable....



While a lot of things look like they were pioneered by the 109 a more than superficial examination reveals that there are a bunch of coincidences rather than actual evolution. 
Modern fighters make do with a single cannon because the cannon is not the primary armament any more. Modern fighters use cannon several times more powerful than a WW II cannon, faster firing and more powerful/larger ammo. Modern fighters are also more volume limited, space for cannon and ammunition was often used for other things. In the 50s and 60s the bulkier electronics often fought for space with the guns and ammo. 
WW II fighters (at least the Germans and French ) started with motor cannon because they didn't have enough power to fly/fight with more than one cannon and the cannon they _started _with could not be synchronized to fire through the moving prop blades, their 2nd generation cannon could. With a single cannon firing through the prop hub was the only answer. 
Modern jets often use the wing as giant fuel tank or series of fuel tanks in a way that WW II piston engine planes never did (Post war Mustang racers could fit over 800 gallons of fuel in a empty sealed wing).
The 109s wing was NOT high angle of attack. The slats just allowed the pilot to retain aileron control when the wing stalled. 

There is a bunch more.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 22, 2018)

I believe that Willy's company was paying a fee to Handley page for the use of their revolutionary but patented leading edge slats?


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 22, 2018)

One might also want to look at the Spad XII of WW I. Single cannon in the fuselage and landing gear attached to the fuselage. Wings clean and without guns, wings designed for dog fighting

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 22, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> One might also want to look at the Spad XII of WW I. Single cannon in the fuselage and landing gear attached to the fuselage. Wings clean and without guns, wings designed for dog fighting


I was just looking earlier, the dry weight of the Napier Sabre engine was twice the dry weight of a Sopwith Camel. That excludes all cooling for oil and water and the weight of all oil and water.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 23, 2018)

Milosh said:


> The track of the Spitfire was narrower than that of the 109.


The F4F's maingear had a very narrow track, too.


----------



## P-39 Expert (Jul 23, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> The F4F's maingear had a very narrow track, too.


And that narrow landing gear was the weak point of all three. And don't forget the P-40, it was tricky on the ground too.


----------



## Milosh (Jul 23, 2018)

P-39 Expert said:


> And that narrow landing gear was the weak point of all three. And don't forget the P-40, it was tricky on the ground too.



Nope. It was the geometry of the 109 that was a problem.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Jul 23, 2018)

The original Bf109 was armed with two 7.92 mm machine guns firing through the propeller; the French Dewoitine D.501 had a _moteur-cannon _considerably before the Bf109, which didn’t get it until the F model. 

Certainly, the Bf109 had some innovations, but don’t give undue credit.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 23, 2018)

P-39 Expert said:


> All true, but that narrow landing gear made the 109 a bitch to land, it never had sufficient fuel, the canopy was hard to see out of, and armement was deficient until larger bore cannon in the engine and canon in the wings.



The narrow track was not really the problem. There were plenty of aircraft with narrow track gear including the Spitfire. The issue was the toe out configuration.

From the Emil on the armament was very sufficient.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 23, 2018)

swampyankee said:


> The original Bf109 was armed with two 7.92 mm machine guns firing through the propeller; the French Dewoitine D.501 had a _moteur-cannon _considerably before the Bf109, which didn’t get it until the F model.
> 
> Certainly, the Bf109 had some innovations, but don’t give undue credit.



Negative. The 109 had 20mm cannons starting with the E-2.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 23, 2018)

The 109 according to one book (in English so.....) was _designed_ for two machine guns _or_ one cannon. The early Jumo 210 only made a bit over 600hp and was late so prototype (without guns?) flew with a RR Kestrel.
Later Jumo 210s got a bit more powerful, up to 700hp and got a two speed supercharger. MOST Jumo 210s had an arrangement, tube through the engine, to take a gun firing through the propeller hub. A few early planes are fitted with an MG 17 firing through the prop in addition to the two in cowl. Reliability of the prop hub gun is low and some (?) are taken back out. Facing higher firepower from other countries a gun is put in each with to bring the total to 4 Mg 17s.
The DB 600 series was always planned to have a tube (70mm inside diameter?) running through it for a prophub gun. Again trials aircraft showed reliability problems and true service aircraft did not get them. The "E" had a 20mm in each wing but no service aircraft got one through the prop hub.
A WORKING prop hub gun showed up on the "F". 5 years or so after the idea came up.
What the 109 was _designed to do _and how long it took to get to the design goals are a long story but it was always the intention to have gun firing through the prop hub or the engines would not have been designed that way.

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


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 23, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> The 109 according to one book (in English so.....) was _designed_ for two machine guns _or_ one cannon. The early Jumo 210 only made a bit over 600hp and was late so prototype (without guns?) flew with a RR Kestrel.
> Later Jumo 210s got a bit more powerful, up to 700hp and got a two speed supercharger. MOST Jumo 210s had an arrangement, tube through the engine, to take a gun firing through the propeller hub. A few early planes are fitted with an MG 17 firing through the prop in addition to the two in cowl. Reliability of the prop hub gun is low and some (?) are taken back out. Facing higher firepower from other countries a gun is put in each with to bring the total to 4 Mg 17s.
> The DB 600 series was always planned to have a tube (70mm inside diameter?) running through it for a prophub gun. Again trials aircraft showed reliability problems and true service aircraft did not get them. The "E" had a 20mm in each wing but no service aircraft got one through the prop hub.
> A WORKING prop hub gun showed up on the "F". 5 years or so after the idea came up.
> What the 109 was _designed to do _and how long it took to get to the design goals are a long story but it was always the intention to have gun firing through the prop hub or the engines would not have been designed that way.



Wing mounted 20mm cannon are still 20 mm cannon right? 

Therefor the Emil had 20 mm armament.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 23, 2018)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Wing mounted 20mm cannon are still 20 mm cannon right?
> 
> Therefor the Emil had 20 mm armament.



True but what started this was a post that claimed, among other things. 

"which makes Bf109 incredibly advanced and actually from the very beginning. Most of key principles were introduced from the point zero. Take as an example a cannon int he fuselage. Today, all aircraft have the main cannon in the fuselage from very obvious reasons. " 

and went on to mention clean wings with no guns. 

The 109 was not the first or even the second fighter to use a through the prop hub gun (or even 5/6th in service?) , and a number of the firsts this poster attributed to it are more than a bit dubious.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 23, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> True but what started this was a post that claimed, among other things.
> 
> "which makes Bf109 incredibly advanced and actually from the very beginning. Most of key principles were introduced from the point zero. Take as an example a cannon int he fuselage. Today, all aircraft have the main cannon in the fuselage from very obvious reasons. "
> 
> ...



Ah I see. I thought people were arguing about it having insufficient armament until the Friedrich. That was not the case...

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## P-39 Expert (Jul 23, 2018)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> The narrow track was not really the problem. There were plenty of aircraft with narrow track gear including the Spitfire. The issue was the toe out configuration.
> 
> From the Emil on the armament was very sufficient.


LW lost over ONE THIRD of all 109s to TO/Landing accidents. There was something wrong with that landing gear, whether it be width or strength, it was the Achilles heel of an otherwise great plane.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 23, 2018)

P-39 Expert said:


> LW lost over ONE THIRD of all 109s to TO/Landing accidents. There was something wrong with that landing gear, whether it be width or strength, it was the Achilles heel of an otherwise great plane.



That was not my point...

My point was that calling the track the cause of the problem is inaccurate.


----------



## P-39 Expert (Jul 23, 2018)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> That was not my point...
> 
> My point was that calling the track the cause of the problem is inaccurate.


It was narrow. What were the cause of all the landing accidents in your opinion?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 23, 2018)

P-39 Expert said:


> It was narrow. What were the cause of all the landing accidents in your opinion?



It’s not an opinion. It was the toe out configuration, not the track itself that caused the ground looping.


----------



## P-39 Expert (Jul 23, 2018)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> It’s not an opinion. It was the toe out configuration, not the track itself that caused the ground looping.


Seems easily correctable, why were they toe out?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 23, 2018)

P-39 Expert said:


> Seems easily correctable, why were they toe out?



Bf 109 Landing Gear Geometry Issue


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 23, 2018)

Several key factors contributed to landing/TO incidents with the Bf109.
Hard runway surfaces, small rudder, tail-wheel lock, high engine torque and inexperiended pilots - a perfect combination for trouble.

The Bf109 wasn't the only aircraft to have attrition due to ground-losses, but it's certainly gotten more than it's share of unnessecary scrutiny.


----------



## pbehn (Jul 23, 2018)

P-39 Expert said:


> LW lost over ONE THIRD of all 109s to TO/Landing accidents. There was something wrong with that landing gear, whether it be width or strength, it was the Achilles heel of an otherwise great plane.


If you look at most modern military planes they are almost all lost in accidents.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 23, 2018)

pbehn said:


> If you look at most modern military planes they are almost all lost in accidents.


Indeed and all types have their quirks.

It would be interesting to look through the MACRs and see how many pilots (novice and otherwise) were killed by the P-39's flat-spin tendancy.


----------



## pbehn (Jul 23, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> Indeed and all types have their quirks.
> 
> It would be interesting to look through the MACRs and see how many pilots (novice and otherwise) were killed by the P-39's flat-spin tendancy.


It is a false use of statistics, take off and landing is the most dangerous time, especially with a high powered tail dragger. Apart from being shot down and written off as obsolete when else would they be lost>


----------



## P-39 Expert (Jul 23, 2018)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Bf 109 Landing Gear Geometry Issue


Okay, I get it, but the gear was still too narrow. It was a lousy landing gear design from the beginning. And very dangerous.


----------



## pbehn (Jul 23, 2018)

P-39 Expert said:


> Okay, I get it, but the gear was still too narrow. It was a lousy landing gear design from the beginning. And very dangerous.


How? When some of the top aces flew the Bf 109 throughout the war and survived? Requiring skill and training isn't the same as dangerous.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 23, 2018)

P-39 Expert said:


> Okay, I get it, but the gear was still too narrow. It was a lousy landing gear design from the beginning. And very dangerous.



Narrow was not the problem, or we would have this discussion about Spitfires...

Narrow is not ideal, but it’s not the root cause.


----------



## P-39 Expert (Jul 23, 2018)

pbehn said:


> How? When some of the top aces flew the Bf 109 throughout the war and survived? Requiring skill and training isn't the same as dangerous.


The LW lost over ONE THIRD of all 109s built to ground handling accidents. Not one third of all accidents. One of every three 109s built crashed on TO or landing. If you could get them through enough TO/landing cycles they would have killed themselves off without any help from the Allies. 

Somebody had to survive the 109 throughout the war, and the fact that the top aces made it through to the end is merely testament to their immense skill and experience. If only the experten could survive the 109, then it was just too difficult to operate. Not every pilot is a top ace. Just my opinion.


----------



## pbehn (Jul 23, 2018)

P-39 Expert said:


> The LW lost over ONE THIRD of all 109s built to ground handling accidents. Not one third of all accidents. One of every three 109s built crashed on TO or landing. If you could get them through enough TO/landing cycles they would have killed themselves off without any help from the Allies.
> 
> Somebody had to survive the 109 throughout the war, and the fact that the top aces made it through to the end is merely testament to their immense skill and experience. If only the experten could survive the 109, then it was just too difficult to operate. Not every pilot is a top ace. Just my opinion.


Did they? Where are the stats for that? As the war went on the space and planes available for training went down, it is not a fault of the plane if pilots are not correctly trained, you can find many aircraft that were dangerous if flown incorrectly, most are.


----------



## P-39 Expert (Jul 23, 2018)

pbehn said:


> Did they? Where are the stats for that? As the war went on the space and planes available for training went down, it is not a fault of the plane if pilots are not correctly trained, you can find many aircraft that were dangerous if flown incorrectly, most are.


Some are just too dangerous. The 109 was one. Just my opinion.


----------



## pbehn (Jul 23, 2018)

P-39 Expert said:


> Some are just too dangerous. The 109 was one. Just my opinion.


Everyone is entitled to an opinion, I was waiting for some facts, if you quote a figure you must have some back up.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 23, 2018)

P-39 Expert said:


> Some are just too dangerous. The 109 was one. Just my opinion.



You are correct it is an opinion, nothing more.

I don’t think you will find anyone who actually flew the plane that will agree with you that it was overtly dangerous. I’ll take the actual expert opinions.


----------



## P-39 Expert (Jul 23, 2018)

pbehn said:


> Everyone is entitled to an opinion, I was waiting for some facts, if you quote a figure you must have some back up.


Since when do facts make any difference? I quote facts all day from govt tests, plane manuals, books, the internet and nobody believes me. I could care less. Facts are facts whether you believe them or not. It is what it is.


----------



## fubar57 (Jul 23, 2018)

Quoting is not showing. I make up quotes all the time

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 23, 2018)

P-39 Expert said:


> Since when do facts make any difference? I quote facts all day from govt tests, plane manuals, books, the internet and nobody believes me. I could care less. Facts are facts whether you believe them or not. It is what it is.


Bf109 losses, accidents, combat etc. 

FYI checking my 109 incident/accident list mentions less than 1000 takeoff/landing accident out of 26000 cases...

An example :
Bf 109G-2 (wknr 10619) of I./JG 5 on 27-Aug-43 suffered a landing accident in Norwegen, at Fl.Pl. Oslo-Fornebu and was 20% damaged.
It's a typical accident, pilot not injured and a/c slightly damaged on landing.

When introduced the Bf 109 had a relatively high rate of failure/accident but in line with the other a/c being introduced at the time. For instance in 1937 there were just 29 accidents each resulting in injuries.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 23, 2018)

P-39 Expert said:


> Since when do facts make any difference?


They make a great deal of difference - especially if a person is trying to make a legitimate point.

Particularly in regards to a fighter that accounted for a considerable amount of Allied casualties and deaths when compared to other Axis types.

If one is going to toss a number out there, it's usually good to provide a source if it runs contrary to peer-reviewed research.


----------



## pbehn (Jul 23, 2018)

Which one didn't survive the landing?

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jul 24, 2018)

P-39 Expert said:


> The LW lost over ONE THIRD of all 109s built to ground handling accidents. Not one third of all accidents. One of every three 109s built crashed on TO or landing. If you could get them through enough TO/landing cycles they would have killed themselves off without any help from the Allies.



How many 109 landings, in total, were there for those ground handling accidents?

Did 1/3 of landings end in an accident?

Or was it closer to 1/1,000,000?

And how many of those ground handling accidents involved aircraft that were already damaged?

If one 109 loses it on landing and crashes into one, or more, other 109s, would they all be classified as "lost to ground handling accidents"?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 24, 2018)

fubar57 said:


> Quoting is not showing. I make up quotes all the time


Like: "one in 3 people may survive touching Dave's beer, the other two were hauled away in an ambulance"?

Asking for a friend


----------



## pbehn (Jul 24, 2018)

wuzak said:


> How many 109 landings, in total, were there for those ground handling accidents?
> 
> Did 1/3 of landings end in an accident?
> 
> ...


Statistically carrier based aircraft are useless at landing on carriers, probably better with land based planes.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## P-39 Expert (Jul 24, 2018)

pbehn said:


> Did they? Where are the stats for that? As the war went on the space and planes available for training went down, it is not a fault of the plane if pilots are not correctly trained, you can find many aircraft that were dangerous if flown incorrectly, most are.


My source was an article by Corky Meyer (longtime Grumman test pilot/author) in WWII Fighters special edition of Flight Journal Winter 2000. Title of the article was "The Bf 109's Real Enemy Was Itself!" where he states that more than 11,000 of the 33,000 109s were destroyed in TO/landing accidents. I have read this figure before in other sources. 

Meyer was a fellow of the Society of Experimental Test Pilots and in 1971 was awarded the James H. Doolittle Award for Outstanding Professional Accomplishment in Aerospace Technical Management.


----------



## buffnut453 (Jul 24, 2018)

P-39 Expert said:


> My source was an article by Corky Meyer (longtime Grumman test pilot/author) in WWII Fighters special edition of Flight Journal Winter 2000. Title of the article was "The Bf 109's Real Enemy Was Itself!" where he states that more than 11,000 of the 33,000 109s were destroyed in TO/landing accidents. I have read this figure before in other sources.
> 
> Meyer was a fellow of the Society of Experimental Test Pilots and in 1971 was awarded the James H. Doolittle Award for Outstanding Professional Accomplishment in Aerospace Technical Management.



It would be good to know the precise origin of those figures. I've seen long-propagated mistakes being trotted out by a succession of authors simply because they quoted "someone who knew". In tracing the history of one particular mistake, the earliest published record was made by a well-known and highly-respected aviation historian...but he plain got it wrong. 

Just because something gets repeated doesn't mean it's correct, no matter how well qualified the writer may be. One only has to look at the nonsense taking place on a daily basis on social media to know that's a truth!

Reactions: Winner Winner:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 24, 2018)

Also those figures do not take everything into account.

Was the aircraft landing while battle damaged?

Field Conditions?

Pilot health (injury)?

Pilot Training?

You can spin statistics however you want to say whatever you want it to say. That does not mean it tells the whole picture.

I don’t think anyone will disagree that the landing gear on a 109 was not ideal, and probably it’s biggest issue, but to say the aircraft was “Too Dangerous” because of it is not correct.

Opinions are like assholes. Everyone has one, and they both stink.


----------



## buffnut453 (Jul 24, 2018)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Opinions are like assholes. Everyone has one.



One of my bosses had a perennial and oft-used response to that phrase. He would immediately jump in with "Some people are blessed to have 2 of them, and use one solely for verbal communication."

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## fastmongrel (Jul 24, 2018)

Statiscally 100% of people reading this thread will die within the next 100 years I think somebody should think of the children.

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 24, 2018)

It is an interesting "statistic" but actually pretty worthless on it's own.

1. We have nothing to compare it to. Were Spitfires or F4F or Mustangs significantly better or worse? 
2. 109s covers a range of rather different aircraft. Jumo 210 powered planes that weighed about 5,000lbs to late Gs and Ks that close to 7,000lbs.
Unfortunately the standard of training went down as the weight went up. 
3. not all take-off and landing accidents are related to narrow landing gear and/or toe in. 
4. a better statistic is accidents per 1000 hours flown but even that has problems. Planes that flew longer missions have fewer take-offs landing per 1000 hours.
5. what is needed is take-off and landing accidents per 1000 (or 10,000) take-off landing cycles, good luck finding that.

I would note that I once read that the Luscombe light planes had an accident rate about twice most other tail draggers, And that was based on number of hours flown.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 24, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> It is an interesting "statistic" but actually pretty worthless on it's own.
> 
> 1. We have nothing to compare it to. Were Spitfires or F4F or Mustangs significantly better or worse?
> 2. 109s covers a range of rather different aircraft. Jumo 210 powered planes that weighed about 5,000lbs to late Gs and Ks that close to 7,000lbs.
> ...



Exactly, well said. There are just so many variables that make using a blanket statement nothing more than an unfounded opinion.


----------



## swampyankee (Jul 24, 2018)

Anecdote — including eyewitness testimony more than a few days after events — is notoriously unreliable. 

I suspect one possibility is somewhere someone found a report stating 1/3 of Bf109s were involved on landing incidents, which could include anything from a fatality and destroyed aircraft to somebody rolling over a piece of debris and getting a flat tire.


----------



## wuzak (Jul 24, 2018)

Nearly half of all Lancasters built were lost during the war. 

Does that mean that for every mission, half the Lancasters were lost? Seems to be the logic with the Bf 109 and landing accidents.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 24, 2018)

wuzak said:


> Nearly half of all Lancasters built were lost during the war.
> 
> Does that mean that for every mission, half the Lancasters were lost? Seems to be the logic with the Bf 109 and landing accidents.



These kind of things typically happen when people do not objectively look at the big picture simply because they have an agenda.

Note: Not saying anyone here is guilty of that.


----------



## P-39 Expert (Jul 24, 2018)

I understand. So, there is no way that one third of all 109s crashed in ground related accidents. That fraud Corky Meyer (along with others) is a lying SOB. I understand.


----------



## fubar57 (Jul 24, 2018)

I've got about 10% around the web which is less than "where he states that more than 11,000 of the 33,000 109s were destroyed in TO/landing accidents. I have read this figure before in other source." so.....yes


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 24, 2018)

P-39 Expert said:


> I understand. So, there is no way that one third of all 109s crashed in ground related accidents. That fraud Corky Meyer (along with others) is a lying SOB. I understand.









Come on now...

Everyone is saying that you ARE NOT TAKING EVERYTHING INTO ACCOUNT AND ARE MAKING UNFOUNDED STATEMENTS OFF OF ONLY PART OF THE EQUATION.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 24, 2018)

P-39 Expert said:


> I understand. So, there is no way that *one third of all 109s crashed in ground related accidents*. That fraud Corky Meyer (along with others) is a lying SOB. I understand.



"where he states that more than 11,000 of the 33,000 109s were destroyed in TO/landing accidents"


Ok, while close, these are not quite the same thing, on several levels. 

ANd to be perfectly technical. *every plane *that crashes has the ground enter into the incident at some point. Unless you find some crashed planes that are still floating around in the air. 

The point some of US are trying to make is that the statement, on it's face, may be true but it tells us nothing about how frequent the accidents were (every 10th flight or every 100th flight), or how it compares to other aircraft.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 24, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> "where he states that more than 11,000 of the 33,000 109s were destroyed in TO/landing accidents"
> 
> 
> Ok, while close, these are not quite the same thing, on several levels.
> ...



Or what contributing factors were in play.


----------



## fubar57 (Jul 24, 2018)

Interesting article here...virtualpilots.fi: 109myths In it it says...

"_"109s were so difficult to take off and land that half the 109s lost in the war were lost to take off and landing accidents."_
- 5 % of the 109's were lost in take off/landing accidents.

_ "11,000 of the 33,000 built were destroyed during takeoff and landing accidents - one third of its combat potential!" (direct quote)
"Me-109 had an astonishing 11,000 takeoff/landing accidents resulting in destruction of the a/c! That number represents roughly one-third of the approximately 33,000 such a/c built by Germany." (usual internet claim)_
- Source: FLIGHT JOURNAL magazine 
- The magazine has it wrong or has misintepretated the numbers. Luftwaffe lost about 1500 Me-109's in landing gear failures. Note that German loss reports often lump destroyed and damaged (10 to 60% damaged) together. It was also a standard practise to rebuild even heavily damaged airframes. While rebuilding/refurnishing these planes were also upgraded to the latest standards and latest equipment. This means that large proportion of these damaged/destroyed planes were not complete losses, but returned to squadron service.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## P-39 Expert (Jul 24, 2018)

fubar57 said:


> Interesting article here...virtualpilots.fi: 109myths In it it says...
> 
> "_"109s were so difficult to take off and land that half the 109s lost in the war were lost to take off and landing accidents."_
> - 5 % of the 109's were lost in take off/landing accidents.
> ...


Here we go again. My sources are wrong. Published authors who have done research. Okay, got it.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 24, 2018)

Ok, well *technically* speaking, any Bf109 shot down, had an issue with landing.

Soooooooo...there may be a grain of truth floating around in there somewhere.


----------



## P-39 Expert (Jul 24, 2018)

pbehn said:


> View attachment 503029
> 
> 
> Which one didn't survive the landing?


Statistically 1.333 of those crashed on landing.


----------



## fastmongrel (Jul 24, 2018)

P-39 Expert said:


> I understand. So, there is no way that one third of all 109s crashed in ground related accidents. That fraud Corky Meyer (along with others) is a lying SOB. I understand.



I know nothing about Corky Meyer but have to ask as he obviously wasnt a LW pilot where did he get his information from. Did he dig in LW archives write everything down on a spreadsheet and work out the figures or did he read it in a book or did he hear it from a man at the bar.


----------



## fubar57 (Jul 24, 2018)

fastmongrel said:


> I know nothing about Corky Meyer but have to ask as he obviously wasnt a LW pilot where did he get his information from. Did he dig in LW archives write everything down on a spreadsheet and work out the figures or did he read it in a book or did he hear it from a man at the bar.



He was also an author in "Flight Journal" magazine. See article posted above


----------



## buffnut453 (Jul 24, 2018)

P-39 Expert said:


> I understand. So, there is no way that one third of all 109s crashed in ground related accidents. That fraud Corky Meyer (along with others) is a lying SOB. I understand.



Well there's a leap...and then some!

Some people make genuine mistakes. Some people hear something, believe it and restate it. Some people "round up" numbers. Some people misremember an event. A correct memory of an event gets influenced by later experiences. None of these groups of people are lying. 

The claim about 109 losses may be true...but it would be nice to have that tallied from something closer to a primary source than a glib anecdote in a less-than-stellar aviation "history" magazine. Instead of throwing your toys out of the pram, why not do some work to find out if the claim is accurate by consulting German archive records or other sources that are more substantial than a soundbite. There are some really weird people on this forum who actually do that kind of deep, primary source research. Maybe you could swell their ranks and help us all understand more about real history?

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


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 24, 2018)

P-39 Expert said:


> Here we go again. My sources are wrong. Published authors who have done research. Okay, got it.


Seriously, now.

There have many times an author has used another's works to source from, right or wrong - this honestly should come as no surprise to you.

There has been MANY occasions where incorrect facts have been published, either by way of a lack of cross-checking, a typo or simply postulating.

An old gem that keeps surfacing, is Green's assertion that the Ju390 flew to the U.S. coastline. There has been constant debate over this, but the mention first appeared in 1955 (in an article by Green) without any verification and has pretty much been discounted based on available sources - yet it keeps popping up.


----------



## fastmongrel (Jul 24, 2018)

fubar57 said:


> He was also an author in "Flight Journal" magazine. See article posted above



I know nothing about Flight Journal magazine but unless it was a peer reviewed publication like The Lancet or Nature it has about as much weight as the opinions of the man at the bar.

I am also a published Magazine author having several articles in magazines with circulations in the tens of tens. Does this mean my opinion is gospel even though of the 5 articles 3 were about bicycles and 2 were about model railways.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 24, 2018)

There was an interesting thread here a few years ago. It used the actual Bundesarchiv data. According to the German archives, approx 9,000 Bf 109’s were lost to non enemy action. This could be anything from a fire, mechanical failure, pilot error, landing or take-off accident, training error, etc.

So if the Germans count for all non combat related losses is less than the 11,000 claim how is that possible?

The approx number of 1,500 lost in take-off/landing accidents is much more believable.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## BiffF15 (Jul 24, 2018)

P39 Expert,

You probably don’t mean to but you are coming across in a not good way. The guys that are interacting with you on this are trying to help so look at it from another point of view. 

I have read Corkys articles and think they are great info, but it doesn’t mean he was 100% accurate. I have heard the 1/3 comment before but have never seen a source. And by source I mean data not just stated “facts”. I also read an article by a ranked acrobatics pilot who checked out in a Bf109. He spoke at length with a former WW2 109 pilot, as well as guys currently flying it. Remember the first sortie is solo. His take was its a handful on takeoff and landing, and you had to fly it from engine start to shutdown and it demanded your attention.

My take away from that is it’s a freaking handful in the pattern and below. It’s the only WW2 fighter I would be hesitant to get a check out in. Also think about this, if the Luftwaffe was actually losing 1/3rd of their 109s to takeoff and landing accidents don’t you think they would have done something about it, like reengineer the gear geometry? They understood what limited resources they had at their disposal, and that would not have been logical stewardship of it.

Just food for thought.

Cheers,
Biff

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Winner Winner:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 24, 2018)

Good points, Biff - and as an aside, the He162 used the Bf109's main gear without issue. As has been mentioned before, there were several factors in the Bf109's design that all came together to create the situation.

In regards to an author being infallible, I would suggest reading "Death Traps" by Belton Cooper. In his book, he goes on to state that the M4 Sherman was no match for German armor and that the M4 and their crews were essentially sacrificed (a large share of his book dwells on this being a conspiracy by the U.S. Government). None of it's true and his basis for facts was that he was a mechanic working on the M4 and other AFVs, and yet his unit NEVER encountered a Tiger or Panther.

So just because someone publishes a book, doesn't make it an authority on the subject - otherwise everything on the internet is true...

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 24, 2018)

fubar57 said:


> - The magazine has it wrong or has misintepretated the numbers. Luftwaffe *lost about 1500 Me-109's in landing gear failures*. Note that German loss reports often lump destroyed and damaged (10 to 60% damaged) together. It was also a standard practise to rebuild even heavily damaged airframes. While rebuilding/refurnishing these planes were also upgraded to the latest standards and latest equipment. This means that large proportion of these damaged/destroyed planes were not complete losses, but returned to squadron service.



And here again we have a change in terminology or category of accident. 
While a low time pilot may stall a plane on landing and pancake it in from an altitude that breaks/damages the landing gear the landing gear's failure did not contribute to the accident.

on the other hand any failure of either or both landing gear legs to lower or to lock in place would result in an accident. If the oil in the shock absorber (oleo strut) had solidified due to cold or leaked out that could result in an accident. If a landing leg broke off (poor metal/heat treatment/ fatigue/ poor maintenance) that will result in an accident. Then we can argue if brakes and/or tires are part of the landing gear or counted separately. 

None of this has anything to do with width of track or toe in/toe out.

And the 1500 being blamed on landing gear failures tells us nothing about pilot errors, landing too fast, landing too hard, landing too far down the runway and running out of room.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 24, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> Good points, Biff - and as an aside, the He162 used the Bf109's main gear without issue. As has been mentioned before, there were several factors in the Bf109's design that all came together to create the situation.
> 
> In regards to an author being infallible, I would suggest reading "Death Traps" by Belton Cooper. In his book, he goes on to state that the M4 Sherman was no match for German armor and that the M4 and their crews were essentially sacrificed (a large share of his book dwells on this being a conspiracy by the U.S. Government). None of it's true and his basis for facts was that he was a mechanic working on the M4 and other AFVs, and yet his unit NEVER encountered a Tiger or Panther.
> 
> So just because someone publishes a book, doesn't make it an authority on the subject - otherwise everything on the internet is true...




_View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=X-pHe879l60_

Reactions: Funny Funny:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 24, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> And here again we have a change in terminology or category of accident.
> While a low time pilot may stall a plane on landing and pancake it in from an altitude that breaks/damages the landing gear the landing gear's failure did not contribute to the accident.
> 
> on the other hand any failure of either or both landing gear legs to lower or to lock in place would result in an accident. If the oil in the shock absorber (oleo strut) had solidified due to cold or leaked out that could result in an accident. If a landing leg broke off (poor metal/heat treatment/ fatigue/ poor maintenance) that will result in an accident. Then we can argue if brakes and/or tires are part of the landing gear or counted separately.
> ...



Quit with that common sense nonsense...

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 24, 2018)

Don't forget the condition of the runway/taxiway, too...has the field been recently suffered enemy action (artillery, aerial attack, etc.) without proper repair?

Was the field a forward operating area with a crude surface?

Was there deep mud, standing water or snowdrifts?

Lots of variables at work here.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Jul 24, 2018)

pbehn said:


> View attachment 503029
> 
> 
> Which one didn't survive the landing?


I’ll hazard a guess those planes are being flown by more experienced, careful pilots and have more meticulous maintenance than they did in wartime, and are going nowhere if the conditions aren’t perfect.


----------



## pbehn (Jul 24, 2018)

swampyankee said:


> I’ll hazard a guess those planes are being flown by more experienced, careful pilots and have more meticulous maintenance than they did in wartime, and are going nowhere if the conditions aren’t perfect.


I have no doubt about that, but it means it is not intrinsically dangerous, if it were I doubt they would be allowed to fly. The F-104 got a similar reputation, very little to do with the plane itself more with how and where it was used.


----------



## P-39 Expert (Jul 24, 2018)

fastmongrel said:


> I know nothing about Flight Journal magazine but unless it was a peer reviewed publication like The Lancet or Nature it has about as much weight as the opinions of the man at the bar.
> 
> I am also a published Magazine author having several articles in magazines with circulations in the tens of tens. Does this mean my opinion is gospel even though of the 5 articles 3 were about bicycles and 2 were about model railways.


Absolutely, I consider you the most knowledgeable poster on this board.


----------



## P-39 Expert (Jul 24, 2018)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> View attachment 503099
> 
> 
> Come on now...
> ...


Sorry, bad debate skills. Hope I haven't offended any members. I enjoy WWII airplanes. Thanks.


----------



## Kevin J (Jul 25, 2018)

P-39 Expert said:


> Sorry, bad debate skills. Hope I haven't offended any members. I enjoy WWII airplanes. Thanks.


Propaganda or just understanding the mind of a bureaucrat?
Germany. The pilot bails out of the plane unharmed and the plane lands vertically into the ground. Take off and landing accident, so not an allied victory.
Russia. The pilot bails out unharmed after the plane breaks up in mid-air for unspecified reasons. Problem must have been caused by weather erosion of the wood? Plane worn out so not a German victory.
England. The Spitfire won the aerial war. Simple solution here folks. Make people trawl through all the squadron records and don't provide summary data which would have shown that over half the aerial victories were scored on Hurricanes and only a third on Spitfires. Don't forget that almost twice as many Spitfires than Hurricanes were operated by the RAF.
Something must have happened to all those damned planes that got built. If they were that unsafe they would either not have been built or the problem would have been fixed.


----------



## pbehn (Jul 25, 2018)

Kevin J said:


> Propaganda or just understanding the mind of a bureaucrat?
> Germany. The pilot bails out of the plane unharmed and the plane lands vertically into the ground. Take off and landing accident, so not an allied victory.
> Russia. The pilot bails out unharmed after the plane breaks up in mid-air for unspecified reasons. Problem must have been caused by weather erosion of the wood? Plane worn out so not a German victory.
> England. The Spitfire won the aerial war. Simple solution here folks. Make people trawl through all the squadron records and don't provide summary data which would have shown that over half the aerial victories were scored on Hurricanes and only a third on Spitfires. *Don't forget that almost twice as many Spitfires than Hurricanes were operated by the RAF*.
> Something must have happened to all those damned planes that got built. If they were that unsafe they would either not have been built or the problem would have been fixed.


Think you made a transposition Kevin, more Hurricanes were used in the BoB. Another thing to do with the BoB was war time fund raising, Spitfires were used to raise funds, it was a more glamourous airplane people who raised funds for aircraft usually did it for Spitfires. Even as the battle was going on it was the Spitfire that was winning in the public psyche.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 25, 2018)

Nearly 34,000 Bf109s were built in the ten years it saw active service - if the RLM thought the landing gear was a serious issue, they would have leaned on Willy to make it right.

Very few aircraft designs survived for very long if it had a serious flaw.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Jul 25, 2018)

pbehn said:


> Think you made a transposition Kevin, more Hurricanes were used in the BoB. Another thing to do with the BoB was war time fund raising, Spitfires were used to raise funds, it was a more glamourous airplane people who raised funds for aircraft usually did it for Spitfires. Even as the battle was going on it was the Spitfire that was winning in the public psyche.


Correct, more Hurricanes were operated in the BoB, but I'm writing about the entire war not just the BoB. Of almost 15000 Hurricanes built, over 3000 were sent to the USSR but less than 3000 delivered, about 1400 to the FAA and some retained by Canada; so 10000 operated by the RAF. 22000 Spitfires were built, over 1000 went to the USSR, less than a 1000 to the USA, several hundred to Australia; so 20000 operated by the RAF. In the ETO, 55% of all aerial victories were credited to the Hurricane and 33% to the Spitfire. Remember that once the Spitfire has fully taken over from the Hurricane that the USAAF has started operations and it is they who take the war to the Luftwaffe and score most of the victories.


----------



## pbehn (Jul 25, 2018)

Kevin J said:


> Correct, more Hurricanes were operated in the BoB, but I'm writing about the entire war not just the BoB. Of almost 15000 Hurricanes built, over 3000 were sent to the USSR but less than 3000 delivered, about 1400 to the FAA and some retained by Canada; so 10000 operated by the RAF. 22000 Spitfires were built, over 1000 went to the USSR, less than a 1000 to the USA, several hundred to Australia; so 20000 operated by the RAF. In the ETO, 55% of all aerial victories were credited to the Hurricane and 33% to the Spitfire. Remember that once the Spitfire has fully taken over from the Hurricane that the USAAF has started operations and it is they who take the war to the Luftwaffe and score most of the victories.
> View attachment 503214


Ah statistics, one of the curious things about statistics is that, for example the RAF rarely had much more than 1000 in service and only had 250 at the start of the BoB, the rate of losses and obsolescence is staggering.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## wuzak (Jul 25, 2018)

After the BoB, how much role did the Hurricane play in the ETO?


----------



## pbehn (Jul 25, 2018)

wuzak said:


> After the BoB, how much role did the Hurricane play in the ETO?


Confuses me as a Brit, they were still in Malta and N Africa and many took part in Dieppe. But Malta and N Africa aren't ETO I believe?


----------



## fastmongrel (Jul 25, 2018)

wuzak said:


> After the BoB, how much role did the Hurricane play in the ETO?



By mid 41 Home Hurricane squadrons had mostly changed to attack roles.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jul 25, 2018)

Squadrons with Hurricane january '42, NWE theater
1st, 3rd, 32nd, 43rd, 56th, 87th, 96th, 134th, 151st, 225th, 239th, 245th, 247th, 253rd, 257th, 261st, 402nd, 601st, 607th, 615th


----------



## Kevin J (Jul 25, 2018)

wuzak said:


> After the BoB, how much role did the Hurricane play in the ETO?


It was the RAF's most numerous night fighter without radar (IIa/b) until replaced by the Defiant and Beaufighter; as a fighter bomber (IIb); as an intruder (IIc). So you're looking at it being used up until 1943 when it is replaced by the Typhoon. It was two slow to be used as a rocketeer. The Spitfire replaced it completely in the day fighter role by the end of 1941 but they were still claiming victories in that year. The Spitfire was the glamour girl that the French got to see and the Germans got to shoot at over the channel coasts of England and France.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 25, 2018)

Hurricanes also operated in the CBI, like India and Burma.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Jul 25, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> Hurricanes also operated in the CBI, like India and Burma.


Last but not least, the Sea Hurricane which was a standard Hurricane with naval radio, arrestor hook, catapult spools, individual exhausts per cylinder so that you achieved the same speed on a Sea Hurricane IIc without catapult spools as you would with a Hurricane IIa. So just imagine, a Hurricane IIa with the same mods would have done 355 mph!


----------



## KiwiBiggles (Jul 25, 2018)

Kevin J said:


> It was two slow to be used as a rocketeer.


If Swordfish successfully mounted rockets, I don't see how you can claim that a Hurricane is too slow to do so.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 25, 2018)

KiwiBiggles said:


> If Swordfish successfully mounted rockets, I don't see how you can claim that a Hurricane is too slow to do so.


Even the Stringbag carried 8 RP-3 rockets and had a blistering top speed of about 150 mph (even less with a Mk.XII torpedo).


----------



## yulzari (Jul 25, 2018)

The RAF in Cyprus was still using Hurricanes in 1946 and transitioned straight to Vampires.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Jul 25, 2018)

During the Battle of Britain, Hurricanes had a greater availability than Spitfires, as the latter took longer to repair.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Jul 25, 2018)

KiwiBiggles said:


> If Swordfish successfully mounted rockets, I don't see how you can claim that a Hurricane is too slow to do so.


The Swordfish were attacking U-Boats, the Hurricanes were attacking targets on the European mainland where anti-aircraft defences were fiercer.


----------



## Shortround6 (Jul 25, 2018)

I believe there were only 2-3 Hurricane squadrons in England being employed on cross channel attacks?
One reason for the longevity of the Whirlwind. It "doubled" the number of fighter bomber squadrons at the time (up to four?)

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Jul 25, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> I believe there were only 2-3 Hurricane squadrons in England being employed on cross channel attacks?
> One reason for the longevity of the Whirlwind. It "doubled" the number of fighter bomber squadrons at the time (up to four?)


Longevity may have more to do with weather conditions. The Whirlwinds operated mainly over Brittany, where get two months of really clear summer weather each year. May and June is sun and showers, the rest of the year is crap weather. The Whirlwind was a day fighter-bomber so given operations from 1940 to 1943, you get 6 months of operations per squadron, and since you need 50 aircraft for 6 months of operations that gives you two squadrons of aircraft. The Beaufighter is an all weather fighter, it has a navigator, so its much more usable around all of the UK, where believe me, the weather is much much more variable.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 25, 2018)

Kevin J said:


> The Swordfish were attacking U-Boats, the Hurricanes were attacking targets on the European mainland where anti-aircraft defences were fiercer.



The Bismarck says hello...

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jul 25, 2018)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> The Bismarck says hello...



Yeah...and there was that harbour raided by Swordfish that resulted in a lot of ships being lost. What was that now? Tortuga? No, that's not right. Toronto? Hmmm...sounds right but not 100%. 

Oh yeah...it was Taranto! Silly me!!!!

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 25, 2018)

To be honest, speed really has nothing to do with it - a Stringbag mortally wounded the Bismark with an attack speed of roughly 143mph, yet Devastators (206mph) and Avengers (over 250mph) didn't sink any Japanese ships at Midway.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## Kevin J (Jul 25, 2018)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> The Bismarck says hello...


Goodbye Bismarck, you should have tested your guns and radar thoroughly before you set sail.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 26, 2018)

buffnut453 said:


> Yeah...and there was that harbour raided by Swordfish that resulted in a lot of ships being lost. What was that now? Tortuga? No, that's not right. Toronto? Hmmm...sounds right but not 100%.
> 
> Oh yeah...it was Taranto! Silly me!!!!



Actually I completely forgot about that one. Thanks!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 26, 2018)

Kevin J said:


> Goodbye Bismarck, you should have tested your guns and radar thoroughly before you set sail.



Still doesn’t change the fact that it was a fierce concentrated air defense...


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 26, 2018)

If the Bismark had a solid screen of Destroyers and/or Cruisers, the Stringbags would have been ripped to shreds.

As it happened, however, the Bismark's AA couldn't train on the incoming aircraft, as the Swordfish's attack/release altitude was 18' above the water. Literally, the ONLY thing that could have saved the Bismark, is if they had enough warning of the incoming aircraft and launched their Ar196s to intercept.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jul 26, 2018)

Well I think that settles it, the Bismark was the most innovative aircraft of WW2...…..

Reactions: Funny Funny:
2 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Jul 26, 2018)




----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 3, 2018)

Oh, man






I know what a slat is. There are basically two types full span and part span which seem to get confused by people talking about the 109.
Couple of examples of part span flaps







and the 109.




Partial span slats were used to maintain airflow over the ailerons near stalling speed or during the stall to maintain roll control of the aircraft and to prevent spins. Not to increase the angle of attack of the whole wing.
That was the job of full span slats like





there are number of threads on this site that mention this and even a few wing diagrams. the slats on the 109 (especially the later ones with slightly smaller slats) that show the slats only affected about 1/3 of wing. And they only really work when the angle of attack exceeds 13-15 degrees at which point you are bleeding speed like you dragging a parachute. Maintaining lift on 1/3rd of the wing while 2/3rds of the wing is stalled means your are not turning for crap even if you are pulling a high angle of attack.

More in following posts.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Aug 3, 2018)

Bell P-39
SAAB J-21
Boulton-Paul Defiant

I think one could also argue for the Bf109, but it was really no more innovative than many of its contemporaries.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 3, 2018)

The "innovative cannon".

as shown it was hardly innovative. German ambition outweighed good sense. 
Nobody's early 1930s cannon was all that good and the Germans tried for a 64 kg cannon (without ammo or feed) of high power in 700hp (hopefully) aircraft, see the 3 competitors to the 109. They planned to achieve adequate flight performance by not carrying any machine guns to go with it. The gun didn't work very well and was replaced by a lighter gun even in development aircraft. Which also didn't work good enough for service use. until the fall of 1940, 6-7 years after the "innovative" requirement was issued. 
Yes it took the French 3 different guns to get to 1940, the HS7, The HS 9 and finally the HS 404. 
At that is one reason the guns went out into the wings, one slow firing cannon did not offer the fire power needed for even 1940 air combat. 
Guns that fire at 360rpm or less (way less for the Aircobra) don't offer a good chance of hit in a few second firing opportunity. Greater destructive power per second was wanted and that could not be accomplished with fuselage mounted cannon as most could NOT be synchronized to fire through the propeller. That meant two or more (4) guns mounted in the wings. 
With jets there is no propeller and you can bring the guns back into the fuselage (and deal with gun gas ingestion by the engine, at times) Claiming a single gun through prop showed the way rather ignores this significant detour. Which was driven by a real need (see 109 gun boats and Fw 190) 
It also ignores the fact that modern guns fire 3-5 times faster than the guns initially planned for the 109 (and in the case of the US Vulcan gun 11-16 times faster.) which certainly lessens the the need for large batteries of cannon. Ot that many modern aircraft use 30mm cannon for much greater destructive effect and need fewer cannon than if they were using 20mm guns. 

Claiming the 109 was innovative when it failed to get a fuselage mounted cannon into service until after the French built about 2000 fighters with fuselage mounted cannon seems a real stretch. 

and then this " _Secondly, there was no room for carburetor, so they deployed fuel injection. But still, you need a space for supercharger – and where to hell to put a fuel tank. Engineers found a solution – behind and under the pilot seat_."

Now please note the French (and the Russians) used an upright V-12 engine, and did not use fuel injection. I would also note that the First few hundred Jumo 210 engines (or most?) did not use fuel injection. They all used superchargers. The French and Russians somehow managed to find room for fuel tank/s.
Rather a faint claim for innovation if there are other ways of accomplishing the same thing. 

and this;

" _1. Inverted engine add a better visibility, a better CG which leads to the better roll rate…) The meaning of fuel injection cannot be overstated – piston engines could be divided before and after the time of fuel injection, everything before is just obsolete. Fuel injection is a crucial technology breaking point - until today, almost the only progress made and still being making at piston engines is actually enhancement of fuel injection – multipoint, common rail,….). I the sense of fighting machine fuel injection means better climbing, no coughing, more power, less fuel, less maintenance, ,,,,,)_.

Inverted engine might lead to better visibility, small, squashed cockpit negated some of that.
Change in CG is minimal. Upright V-12 that uses gears to mover thrust line up or inverted V-12 that uses gears to move thrust line down. Unless somebody really knows were the center of gravity in these engines was we are just guessing. 
Vertical center of gravity of the engine had next to nothing to do with theroll rate. 

Ah,yes, the famous German fuel injection. Unfortunately for your argument the german fuel injection was not the only type of fuel injection used during the war and it had a few major drawbacks. The German system used a plunger pump for each cylinder and when all was said and done, it required many more parts and was much more expensive to make than the carburetors and.......... wait for it.............throttle body fuel injection (although not called that) used by many allied aircraft. 
There is no reason to believe that the German fuel injection system offered any better climb than the allied fuel systems. Yes there was a freedom from coughing in some maneuvers (which American carburetors never suffered from).
The more power is a mistake, do not confuse results from post war non supercharged engines with the the results of wartime supercharged engines. 
RR figured that the evaporation of fuel in the supercharger lowered the intake temperature by 25 degrees celsius on the Merlin XX and 45, the resulting denser air allowed for more power and the cooler may have allowed for slightly higher boost, which also results in more power. 
Fuel consumption is questionable. The German fuel injection certainly used less fuel per horsepower at high power settings but at cruise settings where the carbs were set to lean mixture the difference was pretty small. Please note the German plunger system as used in the aircraft engines had more limited range of possible mixture ratios than some carburetors. 
The less maintenance is also debatable. The fuel injection may need servicing less often but when it does it needs a lot more man hours. 
Please remember we are talking 1930s-40s aircraft and not modern cars.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## P-39 Expert (Aug 3, 2018)

Regarding fuel injection, is it true that it provides a more even metering of fuel to each cylinder?


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 3, 2018)

P-39 Expert said:


> Regarding fuel injection, is it true that it provides a more even metering of fuel to each cylinder?


With a carbeurator, you have the air-fuel mixture travel from the carb to the intakes via an intake manifold and the cylinders closest to the carb will be rich and the cylinders furthest from the carb will be lean.

Fuel injection typically provides a measured source of fuel to each cylinder, so the answer is yes.


----------



## swampyankee (Aug 3, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> To be honest, speed really has nothing to do with it - a Stringbag mortally wounded the Bismark with an attack speed of roughly 143mph, yet Devastators (206mph) and Avengers (over 250mph) didn't sink any Japanese ships at Midway.



It probably didn't help that a) USN aerial torpedoes weren't all that good (see World War II Torpedoes of the United States of America - NavWeaps), b) USN torpedo attack tactics may not have been optimal, as the Mk13 torpedo only entered service in 1938, and the USN seemed to have deprecated aerial (and possibly surface ship) torpedoes, and c) the IJN concentrated its fighters down low because they were very worried about torpedo bombers, which resulted in a general slaughter of the torpedo bombers and relatively unhindered attacks by the dive bombers.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 3, 2018)

For a lot of the 50s and 60s the cannon was secondary, the primary air to air armament was missiles or rockets in the 50s. Now it turned out the missiles weren't as good (and the rockets were terrible) as was hoped but many aircraft sacrificed guns for for missile and rocket armament. Other aircraft tasked with ground attack or tactical bombing sacrificed one or more guns for extra electronics or navigation equipment.
Anti-bomber gun armament of the early 1950s was multiple cannon, usually four but sometimes more, The British favored four 30mm Aden guns which fired at least twice as fast as the German MK108 of WW II. The English Electric Lighting was designed with four guns in the nose (2 high and 2 low) but the lower guns could be replaced by 2in rocket packs or the equipment needed for Firestreak missiles, one per side. Some later versions had no guns but then had guns added back in, costing 340 liters in fuel tank capacity in the ventral tank, the old gun bays being used for other equipment.
It was race for bigger and longer ranged missiles and the guns took a back seat.
Fighters/interceptors in the late 40s/ 50s / and early 60s were often built (tasked) to intercept bombers with nuclear weapons, stopping them was the priority and guns were NOT the primary armament for all weather interceptors. This was found to a mistake in Vietnam with the rules of engagement used there. Once air forces were used in non-nuclear conflicts (and once missiles were shown not to live up to their advertising) guns made something of a comeback. But no fighter built today (or in the last 20 years) relies on a single gun to shoot down bombers and does not carry missiles. 

---

Now here we get into a rather twisted timeline. Yes you had Douhet and a few others like him but no, they had not demonstrated any such dominance of the bomber in actual fact. Guernica was April 26th 1937 which was well after most of the early WW II fighters were well into the design and tool up the factories stage.
I would also note that majority of bombers at Guernica were JU 52s being used as bombers which hardly qualifies as _powerful and unstoppable._

Most of the bombers _in use_ in the early to mid 30s were actually a pretty pathetic lot with only the Blenheim, the Russian SB bomber and the Martin B-10 showing any real advantages over the fighters of the day. What was _promised_ by the next generation is something else.

Most fighters were evolutionary. 




1916 was preceded by








and





Gee, single guns mounted on the fuselage, monoplanes, landing gear attached to the fuselage.

Why, oh why, didn't somebody think of that before Willie???

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 3, 2018)

Trying to think what "firsts" the Bf109 can claim and quite honestly, I am coming up with nothing.

All metal monoplane, retractable undercarriage, two MGs in the cowl, two MGs in the wings, top speed of 290mph and first flew in 1935...oh, wait! That was the Seversky P-35, my bad.

All metal monoplane, retractable undercarriage, two MGs in the cowl, top speed of 313 mph and first flew in 1935...oops, that's the P-36!

Hmmm...ok, I'll try one more time.
All metal monoplane, retractable undercarriage, two MGs in the cowl, top speed of 287 mph and first flew in 1935...ahh, there it is, the Bf109!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 3, 2018)

Not all metal, one gun in each wing ( and they fire much faster than the guns in the 109s cowl) , but the landing gear retracts 
Was going into squadron service before the 109 flew with the Kestrel engine (and no guns).

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Aug 3, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> Trying to think what "firsts" the Bf109 can claim and quite honestly, I am coming up with nothing.
> 
> All metal monoplane, retractable undercarriage, two MGs in the cowl, two MGs in the wings, top speed of 290mph and first flew in 1935...oh, wait! That was the Seversky P-35, my bad.
> 
> ...




No, no, no!

The US aircraft don't count because, well, they weren't equipped with the _Balkenkreuz_

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 3, 2018)

swampyankee said:


> No, no, no!
> 
> The US aircraft don't count because, well, they weren't equipped with the _Balkenkreuz_


Oops!
My bad...I completely forgot about the Hakenkreuz performance enhancer!


----------



## BiffF15 (Aug 3, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> View attachment 504268
> 
> Not all metal, one gun in each wing ( and they fire much faster than the guns in the 109s cowl) , but the landing gear retracts
> Was going into squadron service before the 109 flew with the Kestrel engine (and no guns).



SR6,

I give, what’s the GeeBee looking plane with the enclosed cockpit and retractable gear?

Biff


----------



## swampyankee (Aug 3, 2018)

BiffF15 said:


> SR6,
> 
> I give, what’s the GeeBee looking plane with the enclosed cockpit and retractable gear?
> 
> Biff



I think it's an I-16.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 3, 2018)

It is either the prototype I-16 or early production model.


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 3, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> It is either the prototype I-16 or early production model.


Preproduction, and was designated TsKB-12 bis before getting the official designation I-16

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 3, 2018)

Thank you.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 3, 2018)

Shortround6 said:


> Thank you.


You're welcome!

The cowl looks different on the TsKB-12, because they didn't have the license for the Wright R-1820 yet, so ended up using the M-22 until the M-63 was available.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 4, 2018)

Ok, try to find a car or motorcycle made in the last 10 years that uses a rack of piston pumps that are controlled by mechanical means only.
Fuel injection became a lot more important in cars/motorcycles with the advent of smog laws. Price of the fuel metering system became secondary to being able to sell the car/motorcycle at all. 

You keep rearward projection (what is used now with post WW II or even post 1980s knowledge and accessories) to try to show how innovative the 109 (and it's engine and armament) was.

the use of the Kommandogerat is a read herring, It had nothing to do with 109 at least until late in the war.

109Es, at least early ones used a manually controlled propeller. It was variable in pitch but the pilot had to readjust it for every flight condition. later ones got a constant speed prop in which a governor was used to adjust the pitch to maintain a constant ROM as flight loads changed.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Aug 4, 2018)

I'm not sure what you are trying to say. That the Bf109's straight wing had something to do with the F-86's swept one? Or that all the world's transonic aerodynamics knowledge was in Germany? If it's the latter, start by learning about the Fifth Volta Conference on high-speed flight, in 1935, and then go through the bibliographies of RT Jones, Betz, Crocco, and the catalogues at NACA, ARC, TsAGI, ONERA, etc.

Lots of planes had automatic leading edge slats. Go find a Tiger Moth to check.


----------



## pbehn (Aug 4, 2018)

How can the Bf109 take credit for the leading edge slats? They paid Handley Page a license fee to use them until 3 Sept 1939.

Reactions: Like Like:
2 | Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 5, 2018)

As a further note on the innovative 109.

It first flew with a Kestrel engine on May 29th 1935. 
The US Army took delivery of a Boeing P-26B on June 20th 1935 with a direct fuel injected R-1340-33 Wasp engine. They took delivery of a 2nd one the next day. Within a year they army had 25 P-26s with direct fuel injected engines.
So, no, the Germans did not pioneer direct injection engines. 

P & W tried direct fuel injection on the R-1340, R-1535, R-1830, R-2800 and R-4360 engines. The R-1340 Wasp was also tested in airline operation.
P & W found no benefit over the company's standard practice of injecting fuel into the slinger ring in the supercharger.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 9, 2018)

Is it me, or did somebody literally disappear from the thread?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 9, 2018)

Just cleaning it up a bit...


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 9, 2018)

Wait...what?
You can delete posts now?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 9, 2018)

Always been able to. Nothing new. We just try to avoid it if necessary. I did not remove these one though.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Marcel (Aug 9, 2018)

They are not deleted, just made invisible.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 9, 2018)

Ok, makes sense now - neat feature, the "invisibility mode"!

And it does explain why the carpeting in here is a little lumpy


----------



## vikingBerserker (Aug 9, 2018)

Yea, I was trying to follow the thread and got somewhat lost.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 9, 2018)

vikingBerserker said:


> Yea, I was trying to follow the thread and got somewhat lost.


Towards the end, there was a person who insisted that the Bf109 was a technological marvel that introduced a long list of "firsts" and didn't react well when his dreams were crushed by the cascade of cold-hard facts.

He has since then become one of the lumps in the carpet...


----------



## swampyankee (Aug 9, 2018)

I'm wondering if there is some amount of talking past each other going on, centered around what people define as innovation vs. good design. I don't consider the Mustang* to be innovative so much as well-designed; the XP-54/55/56 were certainly innovative, but were also unsuccessful. Leaving aside jets, the engines of which forced innovation, the constraints of aeronautics and engineering placed some serious limits on novelty. 

It's also difficult to say *X *is innovative without knowing why, _e.g._, were automatic leading edge slats on the Bf109 a crutch to fix a horrid stall or a design decision to reduce landing speed? The latter
could be an innovation; the former is a band-aid. 

Piston-engined fighter aircraft which had some significant innovation and saw service would, in my opinion, include:


P-39. Mid-engine. Note I don't think this was a good idea, but the P-39 was a serviceable fighter despite -- not because -- of engine location.
P-43. Turbocharged engine. This aircraft was the first instar of the P-47.
Boulton-Paul Defiant. Turret. Innovative, but not well-considered. 
Do335. Tandem engines.
P-38. Configuration. Initial models had some design issues, with the engine induction system, cockpit heating, and agility. 
SAAB J-21. Twin boom pusher. Unique.
Innovation, in and of itself, doesn't equal good performance or even good design.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 9, 2018)

Marcel said:


> They are not deleted, just made invisible.



Well for the non moderators and admin members that is essentially a delete. Only we can see them.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 9, 2018)

GrauGeist said:


> Towards the end, there was a person who insisted that the Bf109 was a technological marvel that introduced a long list of "firsts" and didn't react well when his dreams were crushed by the cascade of cold-hard facts.
> 
> He has since then become one of the lumps in the carpet...



He is still a member here...


----------



## pbehn (Aug 9, 2018)

It is perhaps hard to be very innovative when so much is dictated by the engines performance, weight and dimensions, the Merlin was a good engine but look what it went in in 1939/40 Spitfire, Hurricane, Defiant and Battle.


----------



## Shortround6 (Aug 9, 2018)

Part of the argument was that since modern aircraft use many of the "features" that the 109 did then the 109 must have been innovative.

Which is more a bunch of coincidences that piled up over the years rather than true leading the way on part of Messerschmitt team.

Like the leading edge slats.

See: rolls-royce goshawk | napier dagger | bristol perseus | 1934 | 0631 | Flight Archive
for an article about 16 prototype machines that were displayed to the public at Hendon in June of 1934, almost 11 months before the 109 first flew.
at least 7 have leading edge slats (partial span) to help maintain aileron control near or during the stall and prevent/control spins which were a big killer in WW I and the 1920s.

The use of partial span slats was very common at this time and for a good reason. Modern jets use moveable surfaces on the leading edge of the wing. But these surfaces do not have the same purpose (spin avoidance ) and a lot more to do with lift enhancement in general. To credit the 109 and it's design team with "leading the way" seems a bit much. I don't fault Messerschmitt for using them, many design teams were feeling their way forward trying to combine good handling and low drag and other requirements. The 109 followed one path, other design teams followed other paths. At the time several of these paths could be correct as long as they produced a good product.

Landing gear attached to the fuselage as innovative.
As shown landing gear had been attached to fuselages almost since the beginning of flight. It made for a light structure. It also meant that many of those Biplanes could be towed around with the wings off. As landing speeds went up (and airfields stayed unpaved or poorly paved) and large engines/props had increased torque effects, wider landing gear became a benefit. With the coming of jets and their thinner (relatively) wings hiding the landing gear in them became more problematic. In order to use skinny tires that would fit in the wing the English Electric Lighting used tire pressures approach 300lb pr sq in and many early (and not so early jets ) were concrete runway only. That and the wing (being on/near the center of gravity) became an even more desirable place to store fuel and the landing gear took up a lot of room. 
The idea of towing jets around on their landing gear with the wings removed pretty much disappeared  

the adoption of multiple hard points under each wing also conflicted with the space needed for landing gear. 






With jets going to mid-fuselage wings or high mount wings the length/weight of wing mounted landing gear grew. Mounting the landing gear in the bottom or bottom corners of the fuselage became a more attractive option. The designers of the 109 had their reasons for mounting the landing gear the way they did. Modern jet designers have their reasons for mounting landing gear the way they do. They are not the same set of reasons although light weight and compact are certainly considerations. 

The center gun argument. 
The very first fighters used single machine gun, with 80-120hp it was all they could carry without seriously degrading performance. 
As engine power went up for firepower (2nd gun) could be added. 
During the 20s somethings stagnated. Two machine guns was considered sufficient for several reasons. Planes didn't get that much tougher or faster. 
Increases in engine power were somewhat offset by increases in weight. A 400hp Jupiter engine weighed close to 800lbs compared to the the 500lbs of a 230hp Bentley Rotary. The bigger engine required a bit more fuel and a stronger airframe. Engines and airframes got somewhat more durable but their wasn't a lot excess power for large increases in gun power (although some of the guns did increase in rates of fire.) 
With the coming of the cannon, which the French pioneered, the early engines didn't really have enough power to carry two cannon. Not to mention the ammunition feeds were bulky (box magazines or drums) which would not fit well into the wings. 
By the late 30s engine power had picked up enough that 2 cannon were possible (if they were light) and they got the guns to function (mostly) laying on their sides which helped hide the drums. Cycle rates were low however. In 1940-41 belt fed guns with higher cycle rates became available and a single such cannon offered a fair amount of firepower (backed up by several machine guns) but the bombers had gotten a lot tougher (bigger) and a single 20mm was no longer enough. Multiple 20mm guns (many of which could not be synchronized to fire through the propeller) became the desired armament (if not always obtained) 
With a few variations four 20mm guns seemed to be nice compromise between desired destructive effect and weight of guns and ammo for the plane to carry. 
These are generalizations, there are a number of exceptions. 
Post WWII with even bigger bombers (B-29s and TU-4s) carrying nuclear bombs called for much more destructive armament than even the four 20mm guns and faster firing guns, bigger caliber guns (or both) became standard and the missile and rocket fad started. 
ending up with things like this 





1/2 the armament on a F-89H. No guns left.
Vietnam and few other conflicts showed the missile/rocket armement didn't work as advertised and many planes got a gun (or two) stuck back in as back up to the missile battery which sucked up hundreds of pounds of weight and many cubic feet of fuselage space with the electronics.

But going to guns only was no longer an option as it limited a fighter too much. Most people settled on a single fast firing gun as the back up. There wasn't weight or volume enough for more than one or two fast firing guns. which wound up back in the fuselage for number of reasons, one of which is that they don't fit in the wings very well. 





even turning it on it's side won't work 
Of course even in the 1950s putting a heavy gun battery in the wings was getting difficult





Modern planes are designed they way they are for reasons. Perhaps some of the reasons coincide with some of the reasons that a plane form the 30s was designed, perhaps not. claiming that a 1930s design showed the way or was "innovative" because modern aircraft have a superficial resemblance to the general layout/configuration ignores all the changes in between and why they were done.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
2 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## swampyankee (Aug 9, 2018)

Nazi Germany did have some fine engineers and pioneering aerodynamicists. It did not have all of them. 

I get increasingly annoyed at people who seem to think that it had all of them, and everybody else’s were, at best, third rate. 

I don’t think WWII Germany’s aerodynamicists would be quite so disparaging, especially as many of the aircraft being designed by German engineers were designing used NACA airfoils and other information, including design rules and methods.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## GrauGeist (Aug 10, 2018)

The one truly innovative aspect of the Bf109, was not the aircraft itself, but Willy.

He was able to bring together a range of existing technologies and blend them into a compact airframe that became a top performer. This would include the concept of combining the landing gear sub-frame into the lower engine mount, which not only reduced weight, but allowed for a more dynamic wing structure.
The list goes on, but in a nutshell, it wasn't the aircraft, but the man behind it.


----------

