SHACK!!! and thank God for that.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.
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.
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.
1937. Design work begins on the Me-210 light bomber.Mosquito may have been the best Schnellbomber, but it certainly didn't pioneer the concept.
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..
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.
I would say that the German aerospace industry was very innovative, but it Hitler and his "yes men" kept it from being effective.
".... 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
I think you have a wood fetish.
The Mosquito was a great aircraft because it performed well at the time it entered service.
Might the Saab 21 be a contender?
".... 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 think you have a wood fetish.
The Mosquito was a great aircraft because it performed well at the time it entered service.
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.
Not only was the cockpit in front of the engine, it was out in front of the wing.But the cockpit was in front of the engine
But the cockpit was in front of the engine
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