Most innovative aircraft of WW2 ?

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

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:
(But this has been beaten like a dead horse...)
Click to expand...

Yep, we'll be had up for animal cruelty....

I'm trying to find the most innovative piston engined aeroplane not, one that developed a well established format.
So, the B29 was the logical end development of the well tried tested 4 piston engined heavy bomber. No argument with that.

But, what was the first plane that proved the 4 engined bomber?

Cheers
John
 
We have do discuss about the semantics of the term "innovation"......

By my personal point of view the most important innovation from 1939 to 1945 was inside the aircrafts and not in their skins......

An aeroplane, IMHO, is not only pieces of bent aluminium and engines, but idraulics, electrics and electronics, autopilots, IFFs, navigation systems, ground organization to produce them in large quantities, to train a large amount of skilled crew and keep them flying and fighting in adverse places and conditions......these, IMHO, are the real factors of innovation in aviation.

And the B 29 program, that costed more than the Manhattan project, by this point of view was the most advanced in those years and that gave the most technological "fall outs" in the aviation after the war.

If, instead, we have to discuss about which aircraft in WWII had the aluminium bent in the most fancy way, that's another story....
 
Readie said:
But, what was the first plane that proved the 4 engined bomber?
Click to expand...

Well then we are more than likely discussing before WW2.

Off of the top of my head I would say the first real successful 4 engined bomber would be the B-17 (note I am not saying it is the best 4 engined bomber). Nore do I think the B-17 is the most innovative.

I guess to figure that out though, we would have to make a list of 4 engined bombers built around the time of the B-17.
 

I don't know, the Handley Page V/1500?

Zeppelin-Staaken R.VI?

Sikorsky Ilya Muromets?

There were no new configurations of aircraft in WW II (unless you count the jets) practically every combination of engines, number, location and so on had already been tried. Tricycle landing gear was under development in the 30s and in WW I some planes actually had quadracycle gear, two (or more) main wheels with two nose wheels even if they didn't steer.

What was new were systems or functions that changed the way aircraft could be used. The US Grasshoppers were "innovative" in that showed that small, cheap, low powered planes could do many (most) of the jobs of much larger "army co-operation planes" even though there was nothing "innovative" in the planes themselves. Transports with ramps for loading vehicles or large cargo. new methods of construction, welding wasn't new but welding aircraft structure was.
 
Let's take just the B 29 wing:



a wing of a such an high aspect ratio



with such high loads is in itself a masterpiece of structural engineering of those days.....
 
Last edited:

I have to agree. It is really hard to pinpoint a WW2 "piston" aircraft. I guess that is what makes it interesting though.
 
The circle is complete gentlemen.
We start trying to discuss innovation in piston engined aircraft and end up with the B29 ME262..
Oh well...
John
 
Instead of trying to decide which aircraft (including the Me262 and B-29) was the most innovative, how about looking at the components that were the most innovative (i.e.: unique for WWII) and then sum up which aircraft incorporated the most innovations that made it stand out from the rest...
 

Good idea GG. That's a better way of explaining the point I seek.
Thanks
John
 
I'll still plump for the Mosquito - radical use of materials, first 'composite' fuselage on a warplane, first use of RF heating in assembly, first major use of a long range bomber with no defensive armament except speed, almost endless variation of types from fighter, to reconnaissance, to maritime attack, fighter bomber, ELINT platform, night-fighter etc. etc

www.peoplesmosquito.org.uk

p.s. We're building one in Britain!
 
Haven't read the entire thread but consider the P-51;

First production aircraft with Low Drag Wing which a.) reduced profile drag by 40% over nearest competitors and b.) delayed Mach transition despite a reasonably fat wing.

The manufacturing techniques of flush rivets and surface finish in 1940, combined with higher than average T/C (more internal space)and low drag profile enabled the Mustang from day 1 to achieve significantly higher fuel storage in the wing, install 4x20mm cannon, achieve unmatchable drag performance for high speeds and long range.

The delivery of a Meredith Cooling system which actually achieved net thrust to overcome medium to high speed profile and cooling drag added to already impressive speed and range capability.

The Mustang only carried the 20mm cannon in P-51-1 and Mustang IA but recall no 'bumps' or other issues while carrying significant belt fed ammo capacity
 
DH.98 Mosquito.
-Advanced wooden structure that was used even in D.H. early jets.
-Radiator design that used Meredith effect.
-Boldness to discard all the gunners.
-The first real multi-role combat aircraft.
- It just look good.
 
p.s. We're building one in Britain!
Click to expand...

Ooo, People's Mosquito person! Welcome! The more Mossies in flight the better, in my opinion. They are also building one in New Zealand!

How would you describe the bonded plywood fuselages used by Albatros, Pfalz and Roland used during WW1?
Was the Mosquito a whole new concept or a refinement of an older technology?
Click to expand...

The latter, but to be pedantic, with regards to the Mosquito we're not talking specifically about being the first wooden structured aeroplane, but innovative use of that technology at the time, the early 40s. Those Great War designs were indeed laminated wood structures, and yes, they did set a precedent, but remember they were a part of an established norm; add LVG C VI to that list too, and wood construction was prevalent at the time. In the Mosquito, wood construction was, as these aeroplanes virtually the entire structure, which was unusual for a front line service aeroplane in 1941/1942 when it entered service and the reason behind the use of wood also set it apart from its contemporaries, not to mention that it was very good at damn near everything it did, although that's not specifically an innovation.

The first real multi-role combat aircraft
Click to expand...

I'd argue B.E.2c and 1 1/2 Strutter beat the Mossie to that accolade, but I get where you are going with that.

I'd offer the Messerschmitt Bf 108 and '109 as being very innovative. Although the Bf 109 was not the first all metal monoplane fighter, nor was it the first to feature the equipment I am about to list, it was the first to combine them in one airframe (although not all at once) and thus it did set a precedent - yes, I know what I just wrote, but bearing in mind with regards to the Bf 108 and '109, setting a precedent resulted from the incorporation of these innovations.

These include a true semi-monocoque structure, retractable undercarriage, landing flaps, enclosed canopy, variable incidence trimmable tailplane, variable pitch propeller, cannon armament, leading edge slats - unusual in a fighter. The Bf 108 also incorporated such modernities as enclosed accommodation, the trimmable tailplane, leading edge slats, variable pitch prop, retractable undercarriage landing flaps all in a semi monocoque structure, not bad for an early '30s light aeroplane. Both designs shared these innovations and did set a bechmark.
 
Last edited:

Let's check this against the earlier Polikarpov I-16:
-true semi-monocoque structure: check (although wooden)
-retractable undercarriage: check
-landing flaps: check
-enclosed canopy: no
-variable incidence trimmable tailplane:no (although other manufacturers did not see any advantage until the jet age)
-variable pitch propeller: check
-cannon armament: check (earlier and with better cannon than MG-FF)
-leading edge slats: no (again other manufacturers (apart from Lavochkin) did not see any particular advantage)
What the I-16 had earlier than the Bf109:
-Pilot seat armour
-Self-sealing fuel tank
 
Hmm, I feel Timmpa, you are just splitting hairs. Yes, the Poli certainly deserves its place in history, of that there is no doubt, but the Bf 109 was still more innovative as it set a benchmark for ALL-METAL fighters and in the upcoming conflict, the best and greatest had more in common with the Bf 109 than they did with the Poli. Despite its innovations, the Poli still had (more than) one foot in the past.

Trimmable tailplane, the Bf 109 didn't have moveable trim tabs, only ground adjustable ones, and the trimmable tailplane was designed to be used in conjunction with its flaps - you also didn't mention the Poli had flaperons, full span ailerons that could be used as flaps; oddly, as did the Bf 109, there were two wheels to the pilot's left, one of which operated the flaps, one of which operated the tailplane. When wound together, they prevented the aeroplane from ballooning.

On to the slats, were you aware that almost all of Messerschmitt's fighters had lift augmenting devices on their outer wings (either fixed or moveable)? From the Bf 109 to the Bf 110, Me 2 and 410, Me 163 and Me 262? Few other fighter designers at that time used such devices (the Mitsubishi Zero had washout incorporated into its outer wing panels) and yes, in a tight turn at a high angle of bank made things awkward for the '109 pilot, but although it had a high wing loading, the '109 had surprisingly benign stall, thanks to those slats. These things were inherited from the Bf 108.

As for things like self sealing tanks, armour, the Bf 109 also had these and yes, the Poli had many of the innovations the Bf 109 had before it, but, like I said earlier, technologically it was overtaken by events, whereas the Bf 109 remained relevant for longer as a result of the innovations it did introduce.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

G
Ditching qualities of WW2 Aircraft
Replies
14
Views
2K
ThomasP
T
A
Was the Hispano-Suiza 12Y the worst ≥25L V-12 of WW2?
2 3
Replies
46
Views
2K
ThomasP
T
German WW2 seaplane bases
Replies
1
Views
390
Dimlee
Aircraft in Battle of Păuliș? Hungary vs Romania 1944
Replies
0
Views
418
CHen10
S
Request help identifying type of Bomber aircraft
Replies
3
Views
511
SaparotRob
Menu
Log in
Register