Revolutionary aircraft of World war 2?

[Glider]

Revolutionary aircraft of World war 2.

1 P51 and Zero - for proving that a very long range high performance single engine fighter was feasible
2 Meteor and 262 - first jet fighters
3 Beaufighter - the first true nightfighter with all the qualities needed, Range, Firepower, performance and its own radar
4 Il2 - love it or hate it, the concept was unique and it did what the Russian armed forces wanted it to do
5 Mosquito - because of its unique construction and proving the concept of an unarmed bomber
6 B29 - the first of the next generation of bombers
7 Avenger AEW - the first of a breed

 

[Shortround6]

Revolutionary aircraft of World war 2.

1 P51 and Zero - for proving that a very long range high performance single engine fighter was feasible
2 Meteor and 262 - first jet fighters
3 Beaufighter - the first true nightfighter with all the qualities needed, Range, Firepower, performance and its own radar
4 Il2 - love it or hate it, the concept was unique and it did what the Russian armed forces wanted it to do
5 Mosquito - because of its unique construction and proving the concept of an unarmed bomber
6 B29 - the first of the next generation of bombers
7 Avenger AEW - the first of a breed

You are correct in that the Zero is not often given credit for it's escort role.

However the IL2 was hardly revolutionary and the concept was about 20 years old.

Junkers J.I - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Glider]

You are correct in that the Zero is not often given credit for it's escort role.

However the IL2 was hardly revolutionary and the concept was about 20 years old.

Junkers J.I - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

True, but you will not find another example between the two and it was a heck of a shock to the German armed forces. Everyone forgot about the concept until Vietnam and then the US developed the A10 which is the modern equivalent with similar advantages and disadvantages

Its worth pointing out the the RAF developed the Salamander during WW1 but it just missed the war

 

[l'Omnivore Sobriquet]

The one revolutionary aircraft to me was the Boeing 307 Stratoliner. You know, that B-17 wings and powerplants wide-body liner, with a first, truely high altitude pressurised passenger cabin.

Four engined long-ranged high altitude airliner for comfort, performances, efficiency and safety. Quite a milestone for the future I think, and already a successful 'revolutionnary' concept in its days.

It got ready so early that the question is : is it really a WWII aircraft ?
To my taste yes, I'm more interested in the end 30ies - mid 40ies aviation than the precise WWII one.
In fact, my dream encyclopedia wouldn't be a marvelous "WWII aircrafts" one, but a 1937-1946 one, complete and global.
(more or less, from DC-2 to P-84 with everything in between.)

This said, the Ju-252 was just as good and pioneering but, did it set a trend ?
Hm.

 

[bobbysocks]

how about the original bf 109? didnt it raise the bar to which fighter aircraft had to come up to? especially during the spanish civil war. of the fw 190? the brits had to mod up a spit to compete with it.

 

[Juha]

how about the original bf 109? didnt it raise the bar to which fighter aircraft had to come up to? especially during the spanish civil war. of the fw 190? the brits had to mod up a spit to compete with it.

IMHO not, Polikarpov I-16 would be a better canditate, the first monoplane fighter with retractable undercarriage which went to mass production.
But for the original candidates I would choose Me 262. It didn't revolutionice tactics, IIRC no one followed the LW idea to return 3 planes basic formation for the jet fighters but stayed with the rotte/leader-wingman system. But it opened the door to substantially higher combat speeds.

 

[vikingBerserker]

What was the first radar equipped fighter?

 

[Glider]

how about the original bf 109? didnt it raise the bar to which fighter aircraft had to come up to? especially during the spanish civil war. of the fw 190? the brits had to mod up a spit to compete with it.

Obviously this is a personal view but the 109 was an improvement or development which was being matched in other countries. The early Me109's were not that great, indeed were exaggerated as their opponents in the Spanish Civil war were not at the same level of development and the crews were hand picked. I would back the Hurricane of 1938 against the 109 C/D any time, just look at the tail of the 109 A-E for aerodynamics and its worth remembering that the D version which saw extensive service in the Battle for France, was often mauled by the French fighters particularly the P36.
It was the E version that set it apart and even here the Spit was its equal. This is one reason why I didn't include the Spit or 109 in my personal list of revolutionary aircraft, they were developments of a concept.

.

What was the first radar equipped fighter? .

The Beaufighter was the first true nightfighter. A small number of Blenheim's were used but they lacked performance and firepower plus the radars were very unreliable and lacked range

 

[Clayton Magnet]

If I remember correctly, according to Adolf Galland in his book "The first and the last", the Kondor legion 109C's were outperformed by the I-16's they often faced. A fighter at the end of its development potential is sometimes more effective than a more advanced type, just begining its own.

 

[vikingBerserker]

Thanks G, then I would submit the first radar equipped fighter was indeed a revolutionary aircraft, after all majority of fighters today are so equipped.

 

[parsifal]

The Beaufighter was the first true nightfighter. A small number of Blenheim's were used but they lacked performance and firepower plus the radars were very unreliable and lacked range

I think thats right, but quite a number of Defiants were converted to the role in 1941, and as a stop gap, were quite successful.;

 

[Garyt]

Thanks G, then I would submit the first radar equipped fighter was indeed a revolutionary aircraft, after all majority of fighters today are so equipped.

But then radar would be the revolution, not the aircraft itself. Just as the weapon (the atomic bomb) does not make the B-29 Revolutionary.

 

[nuuumannn]

The Beaufighter was the first true nightfighter.

I would argue the Defiant, and although it was intended as an interim until Beaufighters and Mosquitoes appeared in numbers, was Britain's most successful night fighter between the end of August 1940 and late 1942. The Daffy Mk.II was specifically a night fighter variant equipped with Air Interception Radar and first flew in late 1940. 13 Squadrons were equipped with Defiants; it wasn't just a few converted airframes, but a purpose built night fighter. Most people forget that although it spent only eight months as a day fighter, it had a very successful two year career as Britain's premier front line night fighter.

 

[nuuumannn]

Understand your points nuuuumann but I still hold by my opinion.

Fair enough, Chris; you say potato, I say potato...

P-51 and Zero; nope, not a revolution at all - proved that long range was feasible, but it wasn't a neccessity for a fighter - not revolutionary; didn't change the way fighters were designed, built or operated, just provided a very useful dimension to each armed forces' operations.

The debate is out there on jet fighters - some say yes, I say no because I think the jet engine was the revolution, not the aircraft; you are also forgetting the He 280, the very first jet fighter.

Beaufighter - the first true nightfighter with all the qualities needed, Range, Firepower, performance and its own radar; doesn't make it revolutionary. all of these qualities had been applied in night fighters before and besides, like I said earlier, the Defiant was more successful in bringing down enemy aircraft as a night fighter than any other type between 1940 and 1942. The Beau was a multi role fighter and it wasn't the first.

Il-2, nope, old idea no modern technology, just sound idea in large numbers.

Mosquito. Nope, again, old construction methods cleverly applied, not a revolution in concept either, the high speed unarmed multi role bomber was not a new idea; it was an idea whose time had come; didn't start a revolution, just applying a different way of doing something - and the big heavily armed bomber still had life in it while Mossies were operating.

B-29, as a nuclear weapons delivery platform; the Bomb was the revolution. Like what's been said already, the B-29 was a revolution to the Russians for introducing construction methods and technologies hitherto unknown in that country, but common outside of Russia, also almost every big Russian aircraft benefitted from the B-29's DNA.

Avenger AEW; nope, the first airborne early warning aircraft was a Vickers Wellington fitted with a rotating radar on its spine, not unlike AWACS of today. It was used for hunting E boats in the Channel and another was used for hunting He 111s launching V1s against Britain in 1944. Beaufighters were the chosen interceptors.

C'mon guys.

A revolution (from the Latin revolutio, "a turn around") is a fundamental change in power or organizational structures that takes place in a relatively short period of time. Aristotle described two types of political revolution:

1.Complete change from one constitution to another
2.Modification of an existing constitution.[1]
Revolutions have occurred through human history and vary widely in terms of methods, duration, and motivating ideology. Their results include major changes in culture, economy, and socio-political institutions.

A sudden, vast change in a situation, a discipline, or the way of thinking and behaving. Antonym (of the sense "sudden, vast change"): evolution

 

[Glider]

I would argue the Defiant, and although it was intended as an interim until Beaufighters and Mosquitoes appeared in numbers, was Britain's most successful night fighter between the end of August 1940 and late 1942. The Daffy Mk.II was specifically a night fighter variant equipped with Air Interception Radar and first flew in late 1940. 13 Squadrons were equipped with Defiants; it wasn't just a few converted airframes, but a purpose built night fighter. Most people forget that although it spent only eight months as a day fighter, it had a very successful two year career as Britain's premier front line night fighter.

Its a fair point I admit but the timeline with the Beaufighter was almost identical and the Defiant lacked two major ingredients, firepower and range. Firepower was essential as you often only got one chance in a nightfighter. With the limitations of the radar if seen by the target the target had a good chance of escaping, and you have to look at the firepower installed in German nightfighters to prove that. Range was also important as the aircraft were often in the air for many hours and this was a limitation of the Me110 as a nightfighter.

Besides how many other nightfighters relied on a turret?

 

[Glider]

Fair enough, Chris; you say potato, I say potato...

P-51 and Zero; nope, not a revolution at all - proved that long range was feasible, but it wasn't a neccessity for a fighter - not revolutionary; didn't change the way fighters were designed, built or operated, just provided a very useful dimension to each armed forces' operations.

I would say yes. They were the first long ranged fighter that fundamentally changed the way control of the air was considered and fought. The impact on the deployment of bombers was totally rethought on the basis of this development. You could make a case for saying that these were the first true fighters and all other SE fighters were in fact interceptors

Beaufighter - the first true nightfighter with all the qualities needed, Range, Firepower, performance and its own radar; doesn't make it revolutionary. all of these qualities had been applied in night fighters before and besides, like I said earlier, the Defiant was more successful in bringing down enemy aircraft as a night fighter than any other type between 1940 and 1942. The Beau was a multi role fighter and it wasn't the first.

I covered this in my previous posting. But if you could find a nightfighter fitted with radar before the Beaufighter I would be interested. The Blenheim was more an experiment and the Defiant a stopgap.

Il-2, nope, old idea no modern technology, just sound idea in large numbers.

Old forgotten idea reintroduced that changed the way GA missions were flown during and since the war. There was no other aircraft in the war like it and it was effective, if you have another WW2 example then I would take it.

Mosquito. Nope, again, old construction methods cleverly applied, not a revolution in concept either, the high speed unarmed multi role bomber was not a new idea; it was an idea whose time had come; didn't start a revolution, just applying a different way of doing something - and the big heavily armed bomber still had life in it while Mossies were operating.

The concept of a wooden bomber in WW2 was unquestionably a new concept as was the way the aircraft was built using a mould. How anyone can say the unarmed bomber wasn't a new concept I find difficult to understand, if you can find an example then I would be interested. Re the comment about it not starting a revolution I can quote the Canberra, Vulcan, Victor, Valiant, Buccaneer, Grumman Intruder and finally it was never intended to replace the heavy bomber.

B-29, as a nuclear weapons delivery platform; the Bomb was the revolution. Like what's been said already, the B-29 was a revolution to the Russians for introducing construction methods and technologies hitherto unknown in that country, but common outside of Russia, also almost every big Russian aircraft benefitted from the B-29's DNA.

Most people would agree that HMS Dreadnought was a revolutionary warship as it spurred every major seagoing nation to follow its lead. However there was no new technology involved, bits had already been used here and there, it was the putting it all together, trusting the combination and getting it to work, that made it a revolution. The B29 is a similar situation. It was the first time all the new ideas were put together and it worked, Russia as you said followed its lead, it was a revolution.

Avenger AEW; nope, the first airborne early warning aircraft was a Vickers Wellington fitted with a rotating radar on its spine, not unlike AWACS of today. It was used for hunting E boats in the Channel and another was used for hunting He 111s launching V1s against Britain in 1944. Beaufighters were the chosen interceptors.

I was aware of the Wellington, however like the Blenheim as a nightfighter it was lacking in a number of aspects plus, it didn't work and I think you will find they also tried it on a Liberator. The Avenger AEW did work and that I what made the difference.

Aviation history is littered with ideas and experiments that didn't work, a revolutionary concept is one that does work and changes something in service.

 

[Shortround6]

Does an airplane have to totally change the aviation scene or just change one aspect of it?

Change the way the entire game is played or just change certain play combinations?

The use of the Zero as a long range escort allowed existing bombers to successfully attack targets they could NOT successfully attack without it. They changed the dynamic of air warfare in the the areas they operated in.
Granted a lot of the actual air to air success was due to the pilots but give the same Japanese pilots Spitfires, or Hurricanes or P-39s or Bf 109s and the air to air combats would never have taken place and the Japanese bombers would have been much more restricted in the scope of their operations, The Japanese having learned that un-escorted bombers don't work very well quite a while before the same lesson sank into the western powers.

Kind of the same with the Mustang. It was a bit more accidental rather than planned but without it the US bombing offensive would have either been called off/delayed or shifted to night bombing. It didn't make the US planners think up long range daylight bombing but it sure allowed it to continue after the un-escorted bomber idea was shown to be flawed.

As far as night fighters go, first attempts are rarely successful;

Lots of endurance (12-18 hours), powerful armament ( a 1 1/2 pounder gun) and even a search light to illuminate the target.
Unfortunately it lacked speed, climb ( air ship dropping ballast could out climb it), and without any means of ground control it's ability to actually be within intercept distance of a target was dependent solely on chance.

The Beaufighter and Defiant showed the way into a time when bombers could no longer depend on the cloak of darkness to carry out their raids. The British themselves (and the French and a few other countries) had split bomber types into the 'day bomber" and "night bomber" categories with different performance characteristics. With the coming of effective night fighters this distinction would cease to have any real meaning (the term night was replaced by all weather) and the idea that large slow aircraft could meander about in enemy airspace hiding in the dark (or bad weather) went out the window.
Revolutionary? perhaps not, but certainly changed not only some of the game plays (tactics) but the operational requirements (performance) of future aircraft procurement's.

 

[GrauGeist]

It seems to me, the problem here is actually defining the term "revolutionary" as it applies to aerial warfare.

Aerial warfare initself is revolutionary and yet, there were certain innovations within that concept that could be viewed as revolutionary advances. Like the above mentioned Me323, which was an evolutionary process of fitting engines to a heavy transport glider. While it wasn't the first glider to become motorized, it was the first of it's kind and on such a scale, that it revolutionized heavy transport. That would be a revolutionary process within the evolution of powered flight.

 

[RCAFson]

One of the most revolutionary aircraft of WW2, and perhaps of all time, was the Fairey Swordfish when combined with ASV II radar.

 

[pbehn]

Its all about progression. Much of the Wright brothers time was spent on engines, what would they have done if someone had given them an allison or merlin engine? Probably said it was too heavy to ever go in an aeroplane. Behind the aircraft designer are an army of metallurgists electronics hydraulics and other experts making what was thought impossible possible.