Most innovative aircraft of WW2 ?

[GrauGeist]

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]

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]

In all seriousness, great suggestions all. Thank you.

 

[swampyankee]

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.

 

[GrauGeist]

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]

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]

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.

 

[michael rauls]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[michael rauls]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[P-39 Expert]

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]

Actually, there are much more out (engine: fuel injected free of coughing and negative G issues, variable supercharger, single stick control; wings: a clean, tapered, wing without guns inside, designed to high energy dog fight (up, down) - not to old style horizontal one , landing gear attached not to the wing but to the fuselage; strong and precise armament: cannon in the fuselage, superb tactical versatility: underwing payloads - Rustsatze; production process: highly optimized, easy to produce, everything detachable and transportable by trains... ) 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....

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]

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

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

 

[fubar57]

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

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

 

[Milosh]

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.

 

[Shortround6]

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.