Most Significant Development of British Aircraft

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

Britain had many significant developments. I will list what I consider provided most of the impact.

1. Merlin engine. Outstanding engine, enough said.

2. Integrated air defense system. The British was able to take crude radar technology and integrate it into an air defense system that was extremely effective. The Germans, with possibly better radar technology, did not comprehend this integration capability until after the BOB.

2a. Airborne radar development, primarily sea search for submarines, a game breaker.

3. Intelligence. Certainly the breaking of German codes was a game breaker. While the Poles aided significantly, the Brits executed it. Also, the use of misinformation was excellent. The British had a knack for fighting unfairly!

4. Decision to let North American build their own design instead of the P-40. The resulting Mustang, combined with 1. above set the Germans back on the heels and they were never really ever to recover.

5. Mosquito. Outstanding aircraft, enough said.

6. Armored carrier decks. While not significant in WWII, changed all future carrier designs. P.S., Their post WWII carrier designs were stunning, angled deck, steam catapults, landing systems. This changed Naval warfare.

Oh, yeah, jet engines. The future Nene was a milestone fighter engine.

Just my thoughts.
 
Last edited:
I don't know if it's been mentioned among the above, but monocoque construction of airframes could be considered. Although not unique, it was, particularly in fighter construction, a fair leap from tubular frame construction, allowing relative ease of manufacture, with overall integrity.
 
davparlr said:
3. Intelligence. Certainly the breaking of German codes was a game breaker. While the Poles aided significantly, the Brits executed it. Also, the use of misinformation was excellent. The British had a knack for fighting unfairly!
Click to expand...

Why would you want to get into a fair fight?

British intelligence assets were vital in WW2 as they were in WW1. In both wars, the Germans had no clue that their signals traffic was being compromised, largely because the British excelled at making it seem that their info came from other sources, e.g. sending a recce aircraft over a target that had already been identified, so that the Germans would think airborne recon, not Ultra, had given them away,or keeping convoys together even when they knew that a wolf pack was closing in...
 
SilverSword said:
What would you say was the most effective radar development? Oboe definitely helped with precision of bombing but it had quite a few limitations when the targets were further away.
Click to expand...

Laura,

If we're talking about bombing radars, then I think H2S has to be the definitive development. The ability to map the ground at night from altitude was an incredible breakthrough and was the genesis of all subsequent ground mapping and terrain-following radars.

The development of an integrated air defence network which combined radar, visual observers and fighter control functions was critical. The combination of high-altitude and low-level coverage afforded by the CHAIN HOME system was remarkable in its day and, although technologically somewhat inferior to German systems, it had the vital advantage of being good enough and available at the right time.

Finally, you could include the little-known VILLAGE INN automatic gun-laying radar installed on a number of Lancaster and Halifax gun turrets to enhance aircraft self-protection.

Kind regards,
Mark
 
BombTaxi said:
Why would you want to get into a fair fight?
Click to expand...

I was being facetious. Devious behavior has always been a recognized tactic of warfare, and the British were experts.


This is like the armored carrier deck, not really significant in WWII, but certainly affected warfare afterward and was all you said.
 


I would go with this too.

Hawker aircraft need more credit though. They played a huge part, but always under shadow of Spitfire.

Consider the gliders too, the Horsa and Hamilcar, without them D-Day would have had much harder time.
 
In their bombing offensive, the British got to be very good at developing effective ordinance, for example bombs like the Grand Slam and their incendiary cookies. The British worked out with fine precision the best mixes of High expolsive, antipersonnel and incendiary bombs. This was gruesome work, but it created the so-called firestorms that the germans were unable to deal with if they took hold. Raids such as Hamburg were easily the most destructive techniques of warfare in the pre-nuclear age, and were not just so deadly because of the tonnages accurately dropped over the target. The mix of ordinance made them deadly to the civil population and the civil defence teams trying to contain the conflagaration.

At the other end of the spectrum, the British developed to a high level of proficiency precision strikes with such episodes as the Mosquito strikes against the Gesatapo HQ and of course the attacks on the German dams
 

Frankly I am a bit surprised with this, because while the Mosquito was undoubtedly a very smartly designed airframe, with great aerodynamics... what was so special about plywood construction..? It was practiced in the First World War by everybody, and the Russians built tenthousends of fighters out wood construction in WW2.. And IMHO it tapped non-strategic workforce - skilled carpenter and those trained in building aircraft out of wood, while appearantly metal aircraft construction techniques were not so deeply rooted in Britain - rather than a resource.. its not like balsa wood was native in Britiain, it had to be imported just the same as most the aluminium the British aviation industry used as a building material..!
 

Kurfurst - you are correct about the Mosquito not being the first to utilize plywood. That wasn't what said.

I would debate the requirement for skilled carpenter after jigs and fixtures were created. Are you of the opinion that the bonding processes required highly skilled personnel with lengthy training and apprentice lead times to become effective?

However your point about import requirements is interesting. As to the import requirements I have to say that I am not familiar with the supply chain logistics and always assumed that the wood sources for the plywood was available from native Great Britain. AFAIK Balsa in quantitiy was only available to GB from Mexico and Brazil/Equador but I mistakenly thought birch and basswood were also used.

Having said this - being one of the few critical manufacturing companies which required wood instead of aluminum probably gave them an edge in getting the quantities they needed with as much competition.
 
The raw material was one thing, the conversion of that raw material to a frame making material is another. Taking unprocessed bauxite and turning it into aliminium alloy is an energy hungry, industrial process intensive process, which Britain was in very short supply. Aluminium was in demand for everything from airframe construction to making mess tins, and Britain, like every other industrialised nation simply did not have the the processing capacity to meet demand throughout the war.

The other issue is the labour used. Woodworking tradesmaen are just as highly trained as metal working tradesmen, possibly even mor so. But in wartime Britain, whereas metal working trades were always in short supply, woodworking trades were relatively underutilized. It was a case of using manpower resources not being fully utilized ast the time.

The British also refined and improved the traditional woodworking processes in their laminar plywood construction of the Mosquito. i will confess I dont fully understand the engineering, but in summary the methods of construction used in the mosquito were stronger, cheaper and more long lasting than anythig previously used in wooden aircraft.

"At a time when the metal producing resources of Great Britain were well and truly stretched, the designers at the De Havilland Aircraft Company came up with the idea of building the majority of an airframe from multi-layered plywood skins. Using the resources of an underutilized furniture industry, the components could be constructed relatively easily and raw materials would be in plentiful supply.

So it was that the De Havilland Mosquito was designed around a cold-molded plywood fuselage. The fuselage was molded in concrete molds, in halves. This permitted the fitting of wiring looms and major equipment prior to joining the two halves which made the whole process of construction faster and easier. It was a much like the process used in today’s plastic kits.

The bulk of the construction, including the one-piece wings, employed the laminated ply and hardwood components â€" metal only being used for the critical joints and engine mounts, brackets and screws.

The major benefit of using the balsawood and Canadian birch laminated plywood construction was a major reduction in weight of the finished airframe. This meant that when powered by two mighty Rolls Royce Merlin engines, the Mosquito had an amazing performance.

The Mosquito was eventually produced in a large number of variants, 43 in all, the most used being the MkVI Fighter Bomber which was armed with cannons and machine guns in the nose section.

A total of 2,292 examples of this version were built. The Royal Navy had Mosquitoes with folding wings and special attachments for a torpedo to be slung under the belly and tailhooks for landing on carriers."
 
parsifal, the Mossie fuselage molds were of the 'male' variety. The fitting of wiring looms and major equipment was done after removal from the molds.
 
The construction of the Mossies fuselage was actually very similar to a modern carbon fibre composite fuselage. Thin layers of ply were used in a similar way to layers of woven carbon fibre. What gave the strength to the Mossie was the cold water resin ( still sold today under the brand name Cascamite) which was stronger than the wood.

At the RAF museum at Hendon there was an exhibit about the Mossies construction and they gave some figures about building times iirc it took 300 man/woman hours to build a bare fuselage. I have no idea how many man/woman hours it would take to build the bare fuselage of a metal Mossie size aircraft but all the drilling and riveting must have been very time consuming in comparison.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

A
Why did British aircraft production stagnate a bit during the war?
Replies
18
Views
3K
Geoffrey Sinclair
G
Curtiss SC-1 development
Replies
5
Views
2K
pinehilljoe
Superlative Performance of Japanese Aircraft with Uprated Engines
Replies
17
Views
4K
NeilStirling
N
S
"Generations" of fighter aircraft
2
Replies
32
Views
6K
Barrett
B
Wide Performance Differences, most reliable source? FW190A-8
Replies
1
Views
1K
mjfur
M
Menu
Log in
Register