Most innovative aircraft of WW2 ?

[Shortround6]

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.

 

[Skydog]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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)

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.

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).

 

[jetcal1]

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]

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]

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
View attachment 495661
the above mentioned Bristol Bombay.
View attachment 495662
The Handley-Page HP 51
View attachment 495663

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
View attachment 495664
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

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.

 

[Kevin J]

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]

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]

No one nominèe the Fw 190?

 

[swampyankee]

No one nominèe the Fw 190?

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

 

[Vincenzo]

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

 

[fastmongrel]

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

 

[fubar57]

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

 

[drgondog]

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 ~

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.

 

[drgondog]

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/Western/Orange_County/Newsletters/Presentations Posted by Enrique P. Castro/Phil_Barnes_German Jets.pdf)

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.

 

[Kevin J]

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.

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.

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.

 

[Ascent]

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.

 

[wuzak]

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.

 

[BiffF15]

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