Revolutionary aircraft of World war 2?

[GrauGeist]

Kaman H-43 and K-MAX are direct decedents of Flettner FI-282 helicopter.

Only because Anton Flettner was hired as chief designer for Kaman...

It wasn't a copy, it was a continuation. And it was post-war.

Sikorsky, on the other hand, developed his designs based on his own engineering independent of the helicopters being developed in Germany during the war.

 

[The Basket]

Apart from every rocket powered vertical take off craft since

Cheers

Steve

Again the Natter hasnt been copied.

R4 is new. New to war. Revolutionary. Started helicopters in combat.
Not the concept but actual real.
Sikorsky invented the modern helicopter and the R-4 was his first mass production chopper.
The Black Hawk UH-60 aint Flettner.

 

[BiffF15]

This is a tough one, as the distinction between revolutionary and innovative can be blurred depending on how you interpret it. It seems the trend was improve, innovate, and revolutionize in that order. From my perspective most WW2 aircraft had lots of the first two, and some had all three.

My two cents goes to the guy / guys who standardized instrument layouts (I flew the T37 and it wasn't a pretty panel), which I believe is owed to the Brits (probably saved a LOT of lives and time required to transition). Also the designer who used a "little" ergonomics in how they laid out the cockpit (putting the gear handle on the left side to be used by the throttle hand), along with the Master Arm switch, and tank jettison. Nothing like taking off, then switching the stick to your left hand just so you can bring up the gear...

Cheers,
Biff

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Again the Natter hasnt been copied.

R4 is new. New to war. Revolutionary. Started helicopters in combat.
Not the concept but actual real.
Sikorsky invented the modern helicopter and the R-4 was his first mass production chopper.
The Black Hawk UH-60 aint Flettner.

Again not revolutionary. It was evolutionary, but not the first "true helicopter". Sorry that you don't seem to understand the difference between evolutionary and revolutionary. Not trying to be a dick, please understand this. And I do apologize if you take offense to that.

Sikorsky's VS-300 was of the same configuration, and first flew in 1939. The R-4 was developed directly from the VS-300. Because of this it was evolutionary.

If you really want to get technical the firsr successful single rotor helicopter was the Russian TsAGI-1-EA that first flew in 1931. I will still give it to the VS-300 however as it was more of a success.

I am not the smartest person in the world, but I know my helicopters having lived my whole life around them and having been a passion of mine.

 

[The Basket]

Again not revolutionary. Sorry that you don't seem to understand.

I won't labour the point further.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I won't labour the point further.

As I stated above, my intent was not to belittle or offend and I apologize if it came across that way.

I added the reasons for why I say this to the post, but I think you were responding already while I was editing.

 

[Garyt]

So the Me262 by itself was not revolutionary.

Although if we look at it with this type of a crucible, there will be almost no aircraft that are revolutionary.

I'm not sure if evolutionary/revolutionary is the right way to classify fighter aircraft. After all, most if not all successful fighters are to far down the evolutionary tree if it were to truly be considered revolutionary. Revolutionary aircraft almost never make it into the role of a first line fighter without some evolutionary steps from the first test flights of an idea. For example, the ME262 was not the first jet powered aircraft. But the first jet powered aircraft is not going to make it in one step to a front line fighter.

 

[bobbysocks]

i would say the BV 141 was revolutionary....tho really not worthy of repeating or elaborating upon....but it was of a unique design. the Do335 was in the same boat....

 

[vikingBerserker]

The Natter truly revolutionary but it wasnt operational and didnt work as advertised.

And to my knowledge hasnt been copied.

I think the concept of a vertically launched fighter was used several times:

Convair XFY
Lockheed XFV
Ryan X-13

...and a host of other designs.

 

[nuuumannn]

Steve, I'm aware of the role of the Ekdos, but - and this is the pedantic bit - they weren't squadrons and were disbanded once their role was complete. The Me 262 was first supplied to a bomber squadron before it went to JV 44.

Although if we look at it with this type of a crucible, there will be almost no aircraft that are revolutionary. I'm not sure if evolutionary/revolutionary is the right way to classify fighter aircraft.

I think you might be misinterpreting the purpose of the thread, Gary, which was to determine which aircraft were revolutionary, not how to classify aircraft. You are right, so few aircraft types were revolutionary, but, like I said earlier, the Me 262 was not. Like Dave stated, the He 178 was. Even then, the first of something doesn't make it a revolution - it's the subsequent impact that the aircraft (which in itself might not necessarily be revolutionary, but might utilise revolutionary technology, like the Me 262) or technology had that makes it a revolution or not. Think about what happened during the Russian Revolution - a complete and immediate change of government and philosophy which brought about major changes to life within the country. In technology, aviation specifically, a revolution is the same - something that changed entirely the way a particular thing was done and that the revolutionary thing influenced everything that succeeded it in that particular field.

An innovation, which most here seem to be associating revolution with, is different. Something that is innovative is a novel, but by no means a necessarily original or even advanced means of doing something. Its impact might be profound or it might not. The Concorde was innovative - first use of fly-by-wire, supersonic speed etc, but not a revolution, as its introduction did not change the way commercial passenger aircraft or operations were conducted, in fact in this aspect it was a failure; it created its own niche. The B747 had a far greater impact on commercial aviation - it hastened in the Economy Class revolution. Big difference.

 

[Garyt]

I think you might be misinterpreting the purpose of the thread, Gary, which was to determine which aircraft were revolutionary, not how to classify aircraft.

I understand that, perhaps I did not state properly what I meant. I was merely saying that there are going to be so few aircraft that are indeed revolutionary.

My point was something like the HE178 would never be a front line fighter - too early in the evolutionary process. Just like the Kitty Hawk would never be utilized as a fighter.

The Junkers-1 Eindecker was the first all metal monoplane - but again, never an operational fighter. The Fokker Eindecker on the other hand might be "revolutionary" as it was fitted with the interrupter gear. But is it truly a revolutionary aircraft, or is it the weapon, the interrupter gear that is revolutionary? Just like withthe B-29, is it the Atomic bomb that is revolutionary?

 

[GrauGeist]

Those aircraft you listed were in fact, revolutionary.

I don't think that being an armed warplane is a requirement for being revolutionary, but the fact that they were the first of their kind that successfully (and repeatedly) proved the theory of their time.

The first successful internal combustion engine was certainly regarded as revolutionary, even though it didn't win any Grand Prix races.

Even the Space Shuttle can be regarded as a revolutionary way we went to space (even though it lacked machine guns), by being a reusable space vehicle instead of being a gumdrop on the top of a re-purposed ICBM.

 

[parsifal]

rev·o·lu·tion·ar·y
[rev-uh-loo-shuh-ner-ee] Show IPA

adjective
1.
of, pertaining to, characterized by, or of the nature of a revolution, or a sudden, complete, or marked change: a revolutionary junta.

2.
radically new or innovative; outside or beyond established procedure, principles, etc.: a revolutionary discovery.

3.
( initial capital letter ) of or pertaining to the american revolution or to the period contemporaneous with it in U.S. history: Revolutionary heroes; Revolutionary weapons.

4.
revolving.

noun, plural rev·o·lu·tion·ar·ies.
5.
a revolutionist.

 

[Koopernic]

The Natter truly revolutionary but it wasnt operational and didnt work as advertised.

And to my knowledge hasnt been copied.

B29 was revolutioary in what it brought.
It maybe another piston prop bomber like He-111 but thats selling it very short.



Todays helicopters are not based on German designs pre-war.

Still, the German designs were quite practical, they had advantages in load lifting, C of G, ease of flying but disadvantages in top speed and in the case of the Flettener inter-meshing helicopters the safe approach was only to the front and rear (sides somewhat more dangerous) though they had a safe zone in the rear and no tail rotor strike problem. Helicopter manufacture stopped because of very aggressive production rationalizations. In a different strategic situation the Germans could have generated a massive military and logistics advantage for themselves.

The Focke-Achiles Drache could for instance lift out a partially stripped dowm Me 109 (2800kg/6000lbs) which means it could have also positioned, for instance, a 7.5cm PAK 40 AT gun in a mountain as that gun, with shield, weighed only 1425kg.

The helicopters are in no particular order Flettner, Focke-Achiles, kaman Kmax, Huski, Mil 12 and Kaman SH-2 Seasprite. Seasprite continued to use Flettner tabs for rotor pitch control.

 

[nuuumannn]

Flettner, Focke-Achiles, kaman Kmax, Huski, Mil 12 and Kaman SH-2 Seasprite.

Here, let me help you: From top, Mil V-12, Kaman HH-43 Husky, Flettner Fl 282 Kolibri, Focke Achgelis Fa 223 Drache, Kaman K-Max.

 

[buffnut453]

i would say the BV 141 was revolutionary....tho really not worthy of repeating or elaborating upon....but it was of a unique design. the Do335 was in the same boat....

Nah...just evolving in the wrong direction.

Sorry...couldn't resist.

This is an interesting discussion, though. Strictly speaking, nothing in aviation is "revolutionary" because it all builds on the corpus of existing knowledge and available technologies. Thus, by its very nature, aviation is evolutionary - for how many years did kids make paper darts (tailless delta airframe) before such designs could be implemented in practical manned aircraft? If we're going to accept the tenet of aviation being evolutionary in nature, then we will get evolutionary dead-ends like the Bv141, Natter, Me163 - one could argue that swing wing technology was an evolutionary dead end because it was ultimately (and permanently) superseded by a better solution.

I do think we can point to outstanding examples of airframes that pushed the boundaries of that evolution which are, to all intents and purposes, revolutionary. Those boundaries could be technical (eg He178, Me262, radar, navaids) or doctrinal (eg Mustang, Mosquito) or a combination of the two (eg GCI). In some cases, the actual military scope of the evolution is tough to define but the subsequent civilian application did change the world (eg DC-3).

I fear we risk tying ourselves in knots trying to draw a line between supreme evolution and revolutionary but that's part of the fun of this kind of discussion - we all have opinions and all are valid (at least in our own minds!).

 

[stona]

Steve, I'm aware of the role of the Ekdos, but - and this is the pedantic bit - they weren't squadrons and were disbanded once their role was complete. The Me 262 was first supplied to a bomber squadron before it went to JV 44.

That is pedantic. Ekdo 262 was engaging and destroying enemy aircraft (not unmanned 'drones') in the air within three months of receiving the Me 262. Last time I looked the Meteor destroyed precisely zero enemy aircraft in the air during WW2. The RAF was reluctant to put it in harm's way and, unlike the Luftwaffe, had no need to do so.

The Meteor was a very poor V-1 interceptor due to its slow acceleration. Wing Commander R.P. Beamont 'borrowed' a 616 Sqn Meteor on 26th August 1944 and attempted to fly it against a V-1. He was not impressed, his verdict on the Meteor, in this role, was that "it was not much good". As a man who shot down 30 V-1s flying Tempests, he would know.

Cheers

Steve

 

[bada]

This is a tough one, as the distinction between revolutionary and innovative can be blurred depending on how you interpret it. It seems the trend was improve, innovate, and revolutionize in that order. From my perspective most WW2 aircraft had lots of the first two, and some had all three.

My two cents goes to the guy / guys who standardized instrument layouts (I flew the T37 and it wasn't a pretty panel), which I believe is owed to the Brits (probably saved a LOT of lives and time required to transition). Also the designer who used a "little" ergonomics in how they laid out the cockpit (putting the gear handle on the left side to be used by the throttle hand), along with the Master Arm switch, and tank jettison. Nothing like taking off, then switching the stick to your left hand just so you can bring up the gear...

Cheers,
Biff

Agree with you.
Say thanks to Kurt Tank, as the first to build a cockpit around and for the pilot. the Fw190 being revolutionary on this point, it was the first plane with an ergonomic cockpit also allowing a higher G-tolerance for the pilot.

 

[stona]

Watch early Spitfires 'porpoising' after take off as the pilot flies one handed and pumps up the gear manually. Does that make the installation of a hydraulic pump revolutionary ?

....I'll get me coat....

Cheers

Steve

 

[Shortround6]

Naah, it's evolutionary.
from the 28-30 turns on a hand crank mechanism using cables through the hydraulic pump (hand powered) to electric powered hydraulic pumps

I guess it depends on what you call revolutionary. The First "metal" airplanes only changed the material and not the shape of the aircraft (or airfoil) but the advantages of the strength to weight ratio of the metal alloys soon made it hard for large wooden aircraft to compete. Even small things like controllable pitch propellers might be called "evolutionary" but without them viable commercial aviation may not have been possible. Commercial aviation before the controllable pitch propeller having existed in part due to government subsidies. It wasn't a economically vialbe business on it's own.

Certain aircraft had revolutionary effects. The DC-3 revolutionized the aircraft industry even if it was strictly an evolution of the DC-2. The DC-3 offered operating economy (cost per seat mile flown) such that an airline could actually make money flying passengers without subsidies or airmail contracts. It also changed the bar for all airliners to follow. ALL airliners after the DC-3 were expected to make money flying passengers only on scheduled flights. Air freight was a bonus.

Some fighters and bombers may have had the same effect. Once seen or used they exhibited such an effect or influence that many designs in the works were simply thrown out and new designs started.