Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Like "the best," there are so many ways to define "revolutionary."
One way may be to equate revolutionary with "game changer."
Aozora, take a look at moy post in the other thread. I wouldn't consider the Me 262 as revolutionary; it introduced a revolution in powerplant design, but it in itself was not because it was in no real position to bring about the change that gas turbines could and eventually would offer for two reasons. One, the engine technology itself wasn't advanced enough and neither was the airframe to take advantage of what gas turbines could potentially offer and it was rushed into service prematurely, thus adding to this and two, the Allies got the better of the Me 262 relatively quickly using contemporary technology. Had the war continued, P-80s and Meteors would have been introduced, which also suffered the same deficiencies, being of that generation. Perhaps the first generation of fighters to take advantage of what the gas turbine could really offer in terms of aerodynamic advance was tentatively the F-86, MiG-15 and Hawker Hunter generation and from there, the likes of the MiG-19 and F-100. The '262 was a contemporary design mated to a revolutionary powerplant, as was the Meat box and P-80 and were mere evolution on what currently existed.
As for the Mossie, like I said in the other thread, it was tangential to existing philosophies, rather than truly new, since the idea was out there before and during the Great War actually put into practise.
The techniques in its design and construction were not new at all,
nor was those used in the Hornet, but were the epitome of old technologies applied in an exceptional and rather clever way.
Arado 234 I'll give you, but only tentatively for the same reasons as the Me 262. The Canberra could be argued as the first truly revolutionary jet bomber over previous bombers - also embodying the virtues of the Mosquito philosophy and taking better advantage of the new technology beyond what the Arado could. The Arado was new engines, old airframe, but it was unstoppable and even then this was only temporary by nature of progress, however.
Revolutionary Aircraft.
Sikorsky R-4
Me 163
Boeing B29
These offered a capability not seen before.
Herr Adler's correct, the R-4 may have been produced in large numbers, but it wasn't the first in production and it wasn't the first used operationally in a forward area.I am not sure if the R-4 could be considered revolutionary. It was the first helicopter produced on a large scale, but the concept had already been around for a while.Revolutionary Aircraft.
Sikorsky R-4
Me 163
Boeing B29
These offered a capability not seen before.
Same with the B-29. While I consider it the best bomber produced during WW2, and even though it had many advanced features it still was just a 4 engined piston heavy bomber which too was going the way of the Dodo bird.
The German helicopter program was far from producing novelties...V-2 and V-1.
R-4 was the first helicopter which worked. Not some novelty.
B-29 was the first nuclear bomber. It introduced warfare beyond imagination and was the biggest spending project in US during WW2. it was far more than a fancier B-17.
They had "drones" in WWII will go with Guided Missiles, drones, V2.
I will through out the Bachem 349 Natter as the first vertically launched fighter.
V-2 and V-1.
R-4 was the first helicopter which worked. Not some novelty.
B-29 was the first nuclear bomber. It introduced warfare beyond imagination and was the biggest spending project in US during WW2. it was far more than a fancier B-17.
I would never call the V-1, V-2 or Fi 103 as revolutionary "aircraft".... more like revolutionary weapons.
Yep, agree entirely, although its impact on the Russian aviation industry was revolutionary since the Russians had nothing like it and had to learn a whole new set of skills and manufacturing techniques that they did not possess, but were common abroad.