Most innovative aircraft of WW2 ?

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

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

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-}

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

Click to expand...

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

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-}

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

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Shortround6 said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

GrauGeist said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

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

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.

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.

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 ~

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:

Yeah it was mostly CC and Lanc...

Click to expand...

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

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

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.

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 ~

Click to expand...

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

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.

V/R,
Biff

Click to expand...

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

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?

Click to expand...

Wilco!

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.

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.
View attachment 493324
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.
View attachment 493325
It would hold 24 troops in folding canvas seats along the walls.
View attachment 493326
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.

Click to expand...

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.