Revolutionary aircraft of World war 2?

[Njaco]

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.

....and with that I give my vote to the Me 262. Not the first jet and certainly not the best of its breed, but it changed the way air combat was looked at and led to the modern AF we have today.

 

[Balljoint]

OK. Tough panel; but I'll submit the P-51; not so much as an airframe but as fulfilling a role thought to be impossible. In the early 40's the thought of a fighter able to hold its own against interceptors while having the range of bombers was ridiculed. The P-51 wasn't the only plane with the incipient capability in the role –just the first and probably the best. It revolutionized tactics and strategies,

 

[Garyt]

one could argue that swing wing technology was an evolutionary dead end because it was ultimately (and permanently) superseded by a better solution.

Well for that matter, we can say the same about piston powered aircraft, which were superseded by jet aircraft. Piston aircraft were more successful or propagated if you would more, but you can liken piston aircraft to the dinosaur and perhaps the swing wing to sail finned reptiles.

 

[gjs238]

....and with that I give my vote to the Me 262. Not the first jet and certainly not the best of its breed, but it changed the way air combat was looked at and led to the modern AF we have today.

You wouldn't be biased by your sig pic would you?

 

[fastmongrel]

How about aircraft that werent themselves revolutionary but caused a revolution in aircraft design, armament and tactics.

 

[GrauGeist]

An often overlooked revolutionary aircraft would be the Me323.

While it can be said that it was an innovation, it actually revolutionized military heavy lift missions with it's innovative features, something that hadn't been done before on this scale. Modern heavy transport can be traced back to this aircraft.

 

[bobbysocks]

kind of looks like a huge sikorsky H19 helo with wings....

 

[nuuumannn]

How about aircraft that werent themselves revolutionary but caused a revolution in aircraft design, armament and tactics.

...and this is where most of the aircraft mentioned here fall. Sorry, Balljoint, I don't consider the Mustang in itself revolutionary; the concepts it was advocating existed before and were already being practised; it was the epitome of its specific role and Luftwaffe tactics to counter it as a long range escort were no different to any other aircraft the USAAF employed in the role.

Chris, the Me 262 in itself was not a revolution; it was a part of one taking place and it had its Allied contemporaries; it also wasn't the first jet fighter, although as it has been stated here earlier it was the first jet fighter to go into combat, but also, like I said earlier, it took conventional means to counter the threat. The tactics used against it were conventional and yes, its appearance startled the Allies, but its impact at the time was not as great as we like to place credence on here. Jets were already in production in Britain and the USA at the same time as the '262; like I said, the revolution in aircraft powerplant technology was already taking place, with the '262 as one of its leading proponents. The Germans also rushed it into service prematurely, which, with its deficiencies, meant it was never going to live up to its promise. It was certainly innovative and bears kudos for that, but it was not the revolution; it was a leading player in it.

The 262 did not really bring about a change in tactics used by the Allies; it was defeated by conventional and soundly practised means; bombing of factories, shooting down the aircraft as they approached to land etc. High speed air combat tactics in jets were evolved post WW2 when jet vs jet combat took place. Fighting the 262 during WW2 could and was done with piston engined aircraft using existing tactics; it's only real advantage was its speed. In this case, the Allies had more to fear from the Me 163, which was faster and more difficult to shoot down, but was saddled with its own set of deficiencies.

The RAF reconsidered its position on the Me 262 threat, which early intel in late 1943 had led the Brits to think that by late 1944 the Germans would have some 1000 jet powered aircraft in service, both 262s and 163s, but this was an over estimation and the British realised this by mid/late 1944, so its threat was played down, because the numbers were nowhere near what was presumed. The USAAF of course had a different view because it was its bombers being shot down by the 262, but its response was not jet fighters, but the bombing of factories and airfields. Fighter tactics did not change all that much to what had gone before; it was business as usual and, like the V1 threat, as much as resources were diverted to counter it, the Allies did so conventionally. The fact that the 262 was studied extensively post war adds to its impact and influence, but note that its technological design was not employed extensively post war; the F-86 might have had wing slats and swept wings, but the 262 offered little else and the Americans and British relied on a combination of captured material and their own research to produce their next jet fighters.

 

[syscom3]

B17. Four engines, power turrets, heavy MG's and an acceptable quality bomb sight was revolutionary in the late 30's.

P51. Dont think that combining everything essential about a fighter into one single airframe wasn't a game changer?

Me262. Speed and firepower is everything.

B29. Revolutionary from an economics and systems approach. Dont underestimate the revolutionary change in weapons procurement and how large weapons systems were manged before and after the XB29 first flew.

 

[nuuumannn]

Four engines, power turrets, heavy MG's and an acceptable quality bomb sight was revolutionary in the late 30's

B-17 didn't have power turrets in the 1930s; the Brits introduced these into four engined bombers (and bombers in general before anyone else) before the B-17. In fact it was a British version of the Liberator that was the first American four engined bomber with powered turrets (British turrets, too); the Liberator Mk.II.

P51. Dont think that combining everything essential about a fighter into one single airframe wasn't a game changer?

Game changer yes, revolutionary, no. Besides, it didn't have everything; still could be out turned and out climbed by existing fighters (remember it was designed for the Brits as a replcement for the P-40 and not as a long range fighter escort).

Me262. Speed and firepower is everything.

Me 163 was faster and harder to catch. Read my post above.

B29. Revolutionary from an economics and systems approach.

Could be argued that it was the epitome of the evolution of piston engined bombers. Its revolution was its weapon; the atom bomb, but to the Russians the B-29 was revolutionary, since they had never built anything like it before, so it changed their entire aviation industry.

 

[Juha]

...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

I tended to agree but I cannot resist to add that after reading many of Beamont's oppinions I have a suspection that the main failing of Meteor in his mind was that it wasn't a product of Hawker Co.

 

[Juha]

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...

Kommando Schenck was the first jet bomber unit, formated from parts of I./KG 51. Kdo Nowotny was the first jet fighter unit, it evoluated to (III./)JG 7 which was an earlier and much more important jet fighter unit than JV 44 ever was.

 

[nuuumannn]

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.

And that has to do with the Me 262 being revolutionary or not because... No one's debating the 262 entered service and combat before the Meteor.

 

[buffnut453]

B-17 didn't have power turrets in the 1930s; the Brits introduced these into four engined bombers (and bombers in general before anyone else) before the B-17. In fact it was a British version of the Liberator that was the first American four engined bomber with powered turrets (British turrets, too); the Liberator Mk.II.

For the uninitiated, the first aircraft with power turret was the Boulton Paul Overstrand which first flew in 1933 and entered service in 1936. Only 24 were built.

 

[Garyt]

As I said, there can be such a crucible if you want to limit it to a truly revolutionary aircraft. The craft that make it will generally not be active craft in Ww2 but earlier prototypes. I'm going to use a far more lax definition for my own terms, though I'm not 100% sure what definition to use. The "game changer" is an interesting definition that can be taken many ways.

How I hate to see it used is for example when I have seen shows on the top 10 tanks, and the Sherman comes in higher than the German Panther. Why? Because there were so many Shermans made. That's the industrial might of the tank maker, not the tank itself.

P51. Dont think that combining everything essential about a fighter into one single airframe wasn't a game changer?

"Combining everything essential" is a very debatable issue. I'd say there are a handful of fighters that arguably combine the elements well. The Dora Focke Wulf, the Ki-84 Frank, the Corsair. All are similar in speed, The Dora and KI-84 have heavier armament, The Mustang and the Dora are probably the worst turners, the KI-84 being far superior to the others. The Mustang and the Dora are probably the worst climbers. The P-51 has the best range, but the KI-83 is very close, the Corsair not overly far behind.

But I guess "combines everything essential" - All these planes listed have some combination of "essentials", and the Mustang actually comes out ion the bottom in some of these areas. A great fighter? Yes. Arguably the best? Again, yes. But indeed arguably. Which does not IMO qualify it for revolutionary, as there are a handful of fighters with similar traits.

The Me262? I'd say yes. Avoiding air combat with fighters but hanging around there airbases to try to get them with out fuel and while they are landing are not "standard combat procedures". This was a very substantial change in tactics because in the air they were too difficult to combat properly.

Even possibly the Zero might get some votes, as the allies changed strategy to fight these planes. The B-17 possibly as well, as different techniques and strategies were used to combat these planes as they were far harder to bring down than less well armed bombers. I'd say they were a game changer due to their durability, they would have been a real big game changer had they been able to continue raids into Europe unescorted without losing too many of their own.

 

[Shortround6]

I tended to agree but I cannot resist to add that after reading many of Beamont's oppinions I have a suspection that the main failing of Meteor in his mind was that it wasn't a product of Hawker Co.

It was as close as you were going to get as Gloster and Hawker were part of the same company at the time. Hawker having taken over Gloster in 1934 and then merging with Armstrong-Siddeley and Armstrong Whitworth. Bad mouthing what was basically a Hawker Siddeley product probably was frowned upon by the H-S management.

 

[nuuumannn]

Thanks Buffnut. The Liberator Mk.II, also known as the LB-30, was also fitted with Boulton Paul turrets. It differed from the familiar US B-24 turret configuration in that it had its dorsal turret aft of the wing box, it also had a tail turret, but no nose turret. The aircraft were delivered to Britain without turrets and these were fitted on arrival. The first US B-24 with turrets was the B-24C, which the Liberator Mk.II is often mistaken as a variant of, at least in one book I've read. The B-24C had many differences, including the fitting of its dorsal turret forward of the wing, it also had turbosupercharged engines and the oil coolers either side of its engine nacelles in common with future B-24s that we are familiar with, whereas the Lib II did not. As a result, the B-24C could carry its load at higher altitudes than the Lib II. Only a small number were built, but these gave way the the first mass produced variant of the B-24, the 'D model. The Liberator II was built specifically for the British and is a lesser known variant of the big bomber; the USAAC recieved a few as LB-30s in the transport role; they weren't fitted with turrets and these went into combat against the Japanese in the opening stages of the Pacific War - the first US Liberators to see action.

 

[nuuumannn]

The Me262? I'd say yes. Avoiding air combat with fighters but hanging around there airbases to try to get them with out fuel and while they are landing are not "standard combat procedures". This was a very substantial change in tactics because in the air they were too difficult to combat properly.

That's a poor argument, Gary, you're gonna have to do better than that.

"the Me 262 in itself was not a revolution; it was a part of one taking place and it had its Allied contemporaries; it also wasn't the first jet fighter, although as it has been stated here earlier it was the first jet fighter to go into combat, but also, like I said earlier, it took conventional means to counter the threat. The tactics used against it were conventional and yes, its appearance startled the Allies, but its impact at the time was not as great as we like to place credence on here. Jets were already in production in Britain and the USA at the same time as the '262; like I said, the revolution in aircraft powerplant technology was already taking place, with the '262 as one of its leading proponents. The Germans also rushed it into service prematurely, which, with its deficiencies, meant it was never going to live up to its promise. It was certainly innovative and bears kudos for that, but it was not the revolution; it was a leading player in it."

"The RAF reconsidered its position on the Me 262 threat, which early intel in late 1943 had led the Brits to think that by late 1944 the Germans would have some 1000 jet powered aircraft in service, both 262s and 163s, but this was an over estimation and the British realised this by mid/late 1944, so its threat was played down, because the numbers were nowhere near what was presumed. The USAAF of course had a different view because it was its bombers being shot down by the 262, but its response was not jet fighters, but the bombing of factories and airfields. Fighter tactics did not change all that much to what had gone before; it was business as usual and, like the V1 threat, as much as resources were diverted to counter it, the Allies did so conventionally. The fact that the 262 was studied extensively post war adds to its impact and influence, but note that its technological design was not employed extensively post war; the F-86 might have had wing slats and swept wings, but the 262 offered little else and the Americans and British relied on a combination of captured material and their own research to produce their next jet fighters."

 

[Juha]

...The Me262? I'd say yes. Avoiding air combat with fighters but hanging around there airbases to try to get them with out fuel and while they are landing are not "standard combat procedures". This was a very substantial change in tactics because in the air they were too difficult to combat properly...

In fact only a clear minority of Me 262s were shot down while landing.

 

[nuuumannn]

In fact only a clear minority of Me 262s were shot down while landing.

The British called it Rat Catching and it was highly dangerous to the RAF Tempests that were engaged in the tactic. The RAF discontinued the practise after a while owing to the losses suffered by their squadrons; the Germans cottoned on to what was going on and placed AA guns on the runway approach area and also took the measure of stationing Fw 190s nearby.