Most innovative aircraft of WW2 ?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules


SHACK!!! and thank God for that.
 

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.
 

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.
 
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.
 

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
 

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

 
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
 

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
 
Last edited:
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.


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

Users who are viewing this thread