Revolutionary aircraft of World war 2?

[nuuumannn]

Fairly easy.

Lordy!

Fw-109

Sez it all, really.

B-24 - First (only?) VLR anti-sub platform.

Great War vintage Blackburn Kangaroo and lets not forget a generation of British non rigid airships that served faithfully as anti-sub maritime patrol aircraft, of which the North Sea Class had a nominal endurance of up to 12 hours.

Me-109 - first real successful single engined fighter bomber.

Sopwith Tabloid carried out an attack against German airship sheds at Friedrichshafen in 1914, Sopwith Camels attacked the German airship sheds at Tondern in July 1918 - the very first successful aircraft carrier launched attack, from HMS Furious.

Revolutions? Nahhhh... What else you got?

all three were supposed to be day/night fighters, the defiant had a second crew man to operate radar

Yes, Pbehn, but not all were actually as effective as night fighters as the Defiant was, because of its unique qualities. The proof was in the pudding; more enemy bombers operating over Great Britain by night were shot down by Defiants than by any other type between late 1940 and mid 1942. Pilot operated the radar, the gunner operated the guns.

 

[GrauGeist]

Hurricane - first 8 gun fighter (the comparable 109 of the time had 4, with 2 being slow RoF). A biplane to monoplane conversion that actually worked and could be easily built by those used to the wood and canvas and tube construction methodologies of the '30s.

Are you referring to the Hawker Hart

or the Hillson FH.40 Hurricane project?

 

[Shortround6]

I would note that the name "Fury monoplane" was more of a project name than a description of the actual aircraft. The Hurricane was 5 1/2 feet longer nose to tail than a Fury (and just about 3 ft longer than a two seat Hart). The prototype Hurricane was about 2000lbs heavier than a Fury and over 1000lbs heavier than a Hart carrying 500lbs worth of bombs.

I really doubt that much, if any, Fury structure could be carried over.

 

[Glider]

Thats what I meant nuuuuman , all three were supposed to be day/night fighters, the defiant had a second crew man to operate radar (probably not even thought of when the spec was issued)and provide an extra pair of mince pies.

In the Defiant the Pilot flew the aircraft and operated the radar, the gunner was a second pair of eyes and fired the guns. The workload was intense and a serious problem.

 

[nuuumannn]

The workload was intense and a serious problem.

Never seen it referred to as a serious problem, although it certainly was an intense period during an interception, but not outside of the abilities of British night fighter crews of the time. The CRT display was to the pilot's left and the control at his right, which enabled him to keep his left hand on the control column during an interception. The night fighters were obviously vectored to the general location of the enemy bomber by GCI, then found it using the radar set and the gunner's Mark One Eye Ball, which is how all previous interceptions were made.

Initially Mk.Is were fitted with the AI sets, N1553 being the first in November 1940, but delivered to Special Duties Flt on 23 April 1941. The problem with initial use of the AI Mk.IV radar sets was the unit itself and technical difficulties delayed its introduction until August 1941, by which time the first Mk.IIs were being delivered to No.23 MU, where the units were retrofitted to the complete aircraft. It wasn't until 25 January 1942 that 264 Sqn received its first radar equipped Mk.II. 96 Sqn was the first with the radar equipped Mk.I, in November 1941. Its issues were that the radar fit slowed the aircraft down even more. With the Mk.II's more powerful engine, this wasn't such an issue. By the end of October 1941, there were seven Defiant equipped night fighter squadrons scattered across the UK, with detachments at different bases from their own.

The Beaufighter by contrast was actually very difficult to fly on instruments for the pilot and more than one, including Cunningham commented on how tiring it was to do so, and that was without operating a radar unit. Good team work between the nav and the pilot was essential and Beaufighter pilots and W/Ops were paired up in OTU training and largely remained together throughout their careers, as did Daffy gunners and pilots. Beaufighter crews continued this practise in Coastal Command also. The Defiant's cockpit was better laid out for night flying than the Beaufighter's though. Once the Beaufighter Mk.II with its 'Evil' handling, as one pilot called it, entered service, accidents were frequent, especially on the ground. Mind you, flying into terrain at night was the biggest killer of British night fighter crews during the period of late 1940 to late 1942. RAF Charter Hall in Northumberland, where 54 OTU carried out night fighter training was blackly referred to as "Slaughter Hall".

 

[OldSkeptic]

Few points.

Can't find any mention of an I-16, I assume you mean Ilyushin.

Beaufighter and Mossie - I did say 'true'......

Even in WW1 (and the later 20s and 30s) those who carried bombs were either 2nd string fighters relegated to that task, or were designed for that role (hence lacking the performance as 'true' fighters).
Using that logic I don't actually class a Typhoon in '44 as a 'true' fighter bomber as it was (by then) uncompetitive as a fighter.

Sunderland B-24 - agree had long been a concept ... very few successful implementations though.

"Might be the first successful schnellbomber but hardly the first that proposed or tried as a schnellbomber."
Yes,. many tried ....and so many failed.....

A single 20mm through the prop is not 8 x 0.303 high rate of fire guns.

We may have defintion issues. I think of a 'successful' revolutionary aircraft as (a) not being a prototype but in full production (b) not just a concept.
Plus I did limit it to WW2.

 

[nuuumannn]

Can't find any mention of an I-16, I assume you mean Ilyushin.

Polikarpov I-16.

We may have defintion issues. I think of a 'successful' revolutionary aircraft as (a) not being a prototype but in full production (b) not just a concept.

Again OldSkeptic, you are, like many people here, getting 'revolutionary' mixed up with 'game changers', which all the aircraft you mentioned were. A revolution is something more specific, though perhaps a little more difficult to define - if going by this thread is anything. Definitions of the term revolution can be found throughout the last 10 pages if you look.

 

[OldSkeptic]

I don't think that plane changed anything, or was revolutionary ... the 109 was and did.

A dog, bit like you saying the 'Brewster Buffalo' was 'revolutionary '. It was a failed attempt at that sort of design, unlike the 109 which was ...massively.. hugely...tremendously...whatever... successful.

That's where I draw the line... prototypes, failed designs are not 'game changers'. They are just .. failures. Though to be fair they can point the way for the designers to make better ones.

 

[tomo pauk]

No knowledge what so ever about the I-16, yet the later and similar Bf-109 was the revolutionar, while the I-16 was not?

 

[nuuumannn]

I don't think that plane changed anything, or was revolutionary ... the 109 was and did.

No, the Bf 109 wasn't a revolution; it was an evolutionary step in fighter design. What was revolutionary about it? Fighter development got to the stage where all the modern features in the Bf 109 were able to be put in place in modern fighters around the world pretty much simultaneously, but it didn't spark any great and sudden changes in aircraft design. As for the I-16, it was the world's first monoplane fighter with retractable undercarriage.

That's where I draw the line... prototypes, failed designs are not 'game changers'.

No one's saying they are. The issue looks to be your definition of revolution.

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.
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.

 

[Shortround6]

Can't find any mention of an I-16, I assume you mean Ilyushin.

See nice picture in Nuuumannn's post....first prototype flight 30 December 1933, was in squadron service before Bf 109 made it's first flight.

Beaufighter and Mossie - I did say 'true'.....

First successful is not really revolutionary. The idea/concept had been around for over 20 years and while the Blenheim night fighters were not particularly successful from a kill standpoint they did make some interceptions and score a few kills. They also were the plane that worked out some of the kinks/problems with night intercepts using radar so that the Beaufighter could be a bit more successful sooner than if it was the plane that introduced airborne radar. As a soon as a Blenheim made the first successful radar night intercept the game was changed, it was just a question of how fast.

Even in WW1 (and the later 20s and 30s) those who carried bombs were either 2nd string fighters relegated to that task, or were designed for that role (hence lacking the performance as 'true' fighters).
Using that logic I don't actually class a Typhoon in '44 as a 'true' fighter bomber as it was (by then) uncompetitive as a fighter.

Uh,,,,NO. Sopwith Camels and S.E.5a's were hardly 2nd string fighters. The Curtiss Goshawk was designed from the start to carry bombs:

This example may be a bit overdone. Usually load could include a 500lb under the fuselage OR a 116lb under each wing or racks for smaller bombs. Grumman F3F could carry 116lb under each wing. P-26 could carry five 30lb or two 100lb bombs.
He 51 had an internal rack/bay for six 10 kg bombs. There were more.
These bomb racks were there from the start not added on years after the prototype first flew.
P-40 had capabilities that were not used. While early P-40s did not have racks and P-36 didn't really use them teh export Hawk 75 was advertised as being able to carry a 500lb under the fuselage and a 100lb bomb under each wing (sound familiar for later P-40s?)
Export Hawk also had racks for samller bombs under the wings. The structural components and stress work was already done so when the US/British decided to use the P-40 as a bomber it was merely a matter of installing the racks/controls, no structural modifications needed.

Sunderland B-24 - agree had long been a concept ... very few successful implementations though

.

Actually even the WW I flying boats were fairly successful. Not in terms of U-boat kills but in terms of reducing areas U-boats could operate in and reducing sinkings by U-boats. Progress in powerplants and airframes allowed the range to be extended and heavier weapons loads and finally better sensors but again, that is much more evolution that revolution.

"Might be the first successful schnellbomber but hardly the first that proposed or tried as a schnellbomber."
Yes,. many tried ....and so many failed.....

Actually a number tried and succeeded, at least for a number of months or even a year or so. Russian SB2 bombers being very difficult to intercept in Spain by He 51s and Fiat CR 32s. Likewise Do 17s and He 111 were very difficult for the Republican forces to intercept until more I-16s showed up. These temporary speed advantages were a big boost to the schnellbomber concept although most schnellbombers wound up being caught by slightly newer fighters.

A single 20mm through the prop is not 8 x 0.303 high rate of fire guns.

Most of the french fighters also had a single 7.5mg in each wing. Is a 20mm worth six .303s?

We may have defintion issues. I think of a 'successful' revolutionary aircraft as (a) not being a prototype but in full production (b) not just a concept.
Plus I did limit it to WW2.

I believe most of the planes I have mentioned were full production aircraft. I also firmly believe that a plane cannot be called revolutionary in a limited time period by simply ignoring any and all planes of similar concept/mission that were designed and built before the time period specified.

The Ford V-8 engine of 1962 was revolutionary in the 1960s IF we ignore previous Ford V-8s. The Chevey V-8s, the rest of the GM V-8s and the Chrysler V-8s

 

[nuuumannn]

prototypes, failed designs are not 'game changers'.

I guess I should respond to this. One prototype that was not only a game changer, but also truly revolutionary was the Heinkel He 178; the world's first jet aircraft. Aviation changed after that.

 

[vikingBerserker]

I agree, I think sometimes finding out what will not work can have a tremendous impact on what direction future designs will take.

 

[GrauGeist]

There seems to be a little confusion between Evolution and Revolution when looking at certain types.

To put it in perspective, the jet age can be looked at as a tree. At the base, lies the He178, then you have certain milestones as the tree progresses. At the base, just above the He178, is the He280, the Me262 and Meteor. About that point, there are several branches, like the Ho229 and the P-59 which didn't get far. There's another branch there, that is the P-80 which grew a ways. Then above that is the F-86 and MiG-15 and so on and so on. There's numerous offshoots that never had a chance to mature for one reason or another. It's a complex tree, a very large tree with some great successes and some spectacular failures. All in the process of an evolving technology.

But all the branches lead back to a common point at the base of this great tree: they all point to the revolutionary type.

 

[Glider]

Never seen it referred to as a serious problem, although it certainly was an intense period during an interception, but not outside of the abilities of British night fighter crews of the time.

I certainly have. The screen needed constant attention which is a problem if you are flying the aircraft at the same time.

The night fighters were obviously vectored to the general location of the enemy bomber by GCI, then found it using the radar set and the gunner's Mark One Eye Ball, which is how all previous interceptions were made.

No all previous interceptions were made by the radar operator using the radar to close in on the target and then the pilot (or pilot and gunner in the Blenheim) using their eyes to spot the target. Only when the pilot had a firm view of the target would the radar op take his eyes off the screen

Initially Mk.Is were fitted with the AI sets, N1553 being the first in November 1940, but delivered to Special Duties Flt on 23 April 1941. The problem with initial use of the AI Mk.IV radar sets was the unit itself and technical difficulties delayed its introduction until August 1941, by which time the first Mk.IIs were being delivered to No.23 MU, where the units were retrofitted to the complete aircraft. It wasn't until 25 January 1942 that 264 Sqn received its first radar equipped Mk.II. 96 Sqn was the first with the radar equipped Mk.I, in November 1941. Its issues were that the radar fit slowed the aircraft down even more. With the Mk.II's more powerful engine, this wasn't such an issue. By the end of October 1941, there were seven Defiant equipped night fighter squadrons scattered across the UK, with detachments at different bases from their own.

This is good stuff which clears up the timeline nicely, but it does pose a question. I proposed the Beaufighter to be the first as it was a nightfighter with all the components put into one package that worked. Performance, firepower, range and its own radar. You preferred the Defiant which didn't have an operational in service radar until approx. 12 months after the Beaufighter in November 1941 and then the Defiant was lacking performance to catch the latest intruders and started to be taken out of service in March 1942 about four months later.

The Beaufighter by contrast was actually very difficult to fly on instruments for the pilot and more than one, including Cunningham commented on how tiring it was to do so, and that was without operating a radar unit.

I have never heard that the Beau was difficult to fly on instruments but I have heard considerable praise for its visibility which is so important in night fighting. It was heavy on the controls which made it tiring to fly but not because of any difficulty when on instruments

 

[nuuumannn]

I certainly have. The screen needed constant attention which is a problem if you are flying the aircraft at the same time.

Can you post sources that state the Defiant's pilot suffered a serious problem in this regard, then, Glider? Other radar equipped single-seat night fighters did not suffer too many issues in this respect. Like I said, not too much of an issue for existing British night fighter pilots.

No, all previous interceptions were made by the radar operator using the radar to close in on the target and then the pilot (or pilot and gunner in the Blenheim) using their eyes to spot the target.

Isn't that what I just described? Prior to finding the target with the radar, each fighter was vectored to the area by GCI. Very few Blenheims were fitted with radar and the first kill by a radar equipped Blenheim was made on the night of 22/23 July 1940, prior to then, aircraft were traced, but not successfully attacked. The Blenheim squadrons, numbering six by the end of the Battle of Britain were eventually supplimented by Beaufighters in ones and twos from August 1940.

I proposed the Beaufighter to be the first as it was a nightfighter with all the components put into one package that worked. Performance, firepower, range and its own radar. You preferred the Defiant which didn't have an operational in service radar until approx. 12 months after the Beaufighter in November 1941 and then the Defiant was lacking performance to catch the latest intruders and started to be taken out of service in March 1942 about four months later.

Yep, in terms of timeline, you are right, the Beaufighter equipped with radar entered service before the Defiant and yes, it was intended on being the next service night fighter. My introduction of the Defiant into the argument was that the Beaufighter did not bring about a revolution in night fighter design or tactic and that Defiants, despite their reputation proved as successful, in terms of kills against German bombers at a time when they were at their largest numbers in British skies, as the Beaufighter. The fact was, by mid 1941, there were as many Defiant squadrons as there were Beaufighter ones, and if the Defiant was not in use as a night fighter then that would have removed half of all the effective night fighters in Britain. I don't necessarily prefer the Daffy over the Beaufighter as a night fighter, but make the point that it was not the Silver Bullet you and others here are making it out to be.

In almost all respects it outclassed the Defiant, and even at the end of the Battle of Britain there were some six squadrons that were transitting to the Beaufighter from the Blenheim, and only two equipped with the Defiant, yet by mid/late 1941, the Defiant squadrons numbered the same as Beaufighter units. The reason, the Beaufighter encountered a number of issues that prevented a smooth transition into squadron service. Firstly, initial numbers were not large and it took longer than the Air Ministry anticipated to equip former Blenheim units in numbers. Secondly, the AI sets had many issues and were unreliable to say the least, although this also affected Daffy units. Thirdly, the handling issues that the Beaufighter suffered made the transition between the Blenheim and Defiant units lengthy and troublesome.

I have never heard that the Beau was difficult to fly on instruments but I have heard considerable praise for its visibility which is so important in night fighting. It was heavy on the controls which made it tiring to fly but not because of any difficulty when on instruments.

When you fly by night, you normally fly on instruments at any rate, although even under VMC at night, instrument flying is still essential. Flt Lt Roderick Chisholm, 604 Sqn: "If there were sufficient external guides - a skyline or moonlit ground - it was easy enough to fly steadily, as in daylight. But if these aids were absent, the night very dark and visibility poor, instrument flying in the early Beaufighter called for unceasing and most exacting concentration."

John Cunningham, who needs little introduction: "It was a long hard grind and very frustrating. It was a struggle to continue flying on instruments at night."

The Beaufighter suffered handling difficulties in its initial versions, this is why the dihedral was introduced on the tailplane. Also, pilots found that when the 20 mm cannon was fired, the nose dipped, putting the pilot off his aim. Nevertheless, despite these issues, of course, the Beau squadrons proved its credentials as an excellent night fighter once the pilots got the hang of its nuances.

 

[Glider]

Can you post sources that state the Defiant's pilot suffered a serious problem in this regard, then, Glider? Other radar equipped single-seat night fighters did not suffer too many issues in this respect. Like I said, not too much of an issue for existing British night fighter pilots.

As far as I am aware there were no other early war single seat radar equipped fighters that achieved any success. This radar was tried in the Hurricane without success and was also fitted to some Beaufighters but these were soon switched to the normal configuration. The latter is documented in the book Nightfighter. The only single seat radar equipped nightfighters that achieved any success were the USN radar equipped Hellcats and Corsairs and they used a very different radar with a very different display. The Defiant set up with that radar controlled by the pilot was a failure. Its notable that all successful nightfighters during the war of all nations used the two seat configuration as first installed in the Beaufighter.

Yep, in terms of timeline, you are right, the Beaufighter equipped with radar entered service before the Defiant and yes, it was intended on being the next service night fighter. My introduction of the Defiant into the argument was that the Beaufighter did not bring about a revolution in night fighter design or tactic and that Defiants

This bit I covered before

When you fly by night, you normally fly on instruments at any rate, although even under VMC at night, instrument flying is still essential. Flt Lt Roderick Chisholm, 604 Sqn: "If there were sufficient external guides - a skyline or moonlit ground - it was easy enough to fly steadily, as in daylight. But if these aids were absent, the night very dark and visibility poor, instrument flying in the early Beaufighter called for unceasing and most exacting concentration."

John Cunningham, who needs little introduction: "It was a long hard grind and very frustrating. It was a struggle to continue flying on instruments at night."

The Beaufighter suffered handling difficulties in its initial versions, this is why the dihedral was introduced on the tailplane. Also, pilots found that when the 20 mm cannon was fired, the nose dipped, putting the pilot off his aim. Nevertheless, despite these issues, of course, the Beau squadrons proved its credentials as an excellent night fighter once the pilots got the hang of its nuances.

You are correct the early versions were tricky in the climb or dive and at night that would have been more than a handful. As you mention this was fixed using the alteration to dihedral and after that the problem was clearly manageable as they served until the end of the war

 

[nuuumannn]

Its notable that all successful nightfighters during the war of all nations used the two seat configuration as first installed in the Beaufighter.

Blenheim, don't you mean? I don't dispute this and I never have. The Defiant was mentioned, and I'll say it again, because the Beaufighter was not the most successful night fighter in the time period between the end of 1940 and the end of 1941. Defiants gained the highest ratio of kills per intercepts of any British night fighter in that time, including Beaufighters, Hurricanes, Havocs and Blenheims.

The Defiant set up with that radar controlled by the pilot was a failure.

It wasn't a major success, no, but under the circumstances, what option did the RAF have? Like I said, if the Defiant was taken out of NF duties, the RAF would have lost half of its NF force overnight. Only one kill is acredited to the Defiant based on a radar intercept.

So, Glider, this still does not put the Beaufighter in the category of a revolution, nor have you produced anything to justify your claim. Back to Square One then?

 

[Glider]

I think we can draw this to a close. Blenheim's had three crew the pilot, gunner and radar op.

I believe the Beaufighter was a revolution as for the first time an aircraft had all the qualities that made a successful nightfighter, the first of its type and the one that formed the pattern for all successful nightfighters of the period, one that all the nations followed. It had radar, firepower, range and performance. You don't believe that makes it a revolution, despite the fact that all WW2 combatants followed the same path, then that is your choice.

Did the Defiant have success yes, but only because it was in service in numbers and despite it lacking radar, range and firepower. Technically it was no more advanced than a Bristol fighter in WW1 up against German Gotha (apart from having a radio) and as soon as production allowed, it was replaced as quickly as possible by the, yes, you've got it, the Beaufighter.

 

[nuuumannn]

I believe the Beaufighter for the first time had all the qualities that made a successful nightfighter, the first of its type and the one that formed the pattern for all successful nightfighters of the period, one that all the nations followed. It had radar, firepower, range and performance. You don't believe that makes it a revolution, despite the fact that all WW2 combatants followed the same path, then that is your choice.

Nope, not a revolution. Not just my choice. You misunderstand the term, I'm afraid. A revolution is great and sudden change in the status quo. The Beaufighter did not do this; it was an evolutionary step in the on going development of night fighters and it was superceded by a better aircraft, the Mosquito, which was, in turn superceded by the Meteor NF.11. Yes, it was everything you described - and more; I've been researching Coastal Command OTUs that operated the Beaufighter for years, specifically 132 OTU, so I'm well aware of what it was and what it was capable of. I've had the pleasure of sitting in the cockpit of one, watching one undergo restoration at close quarters also, I've talked to former Beaufighter crew members, so my exposure to this remarkable aircraft is not minimal, but it did not spark a revolution. HMS Dreadnought did, the atom bomb did, the A4 (V2) rocket did, but the Beaufighter did not. You need to understand the definition of revolution, Glider to realise this.

Did the Defiant have success yes, but only because it was in service in numbers and despite it lacking radar, range and firepower. Technically it was no more advanced than a Bristol fighter in WW1 up against German Gotha (apart from having a radio) and as soon as production allowed, it was replaced as quickly as possible by the, yes, you've got it, the Beaufighter.

Put your dick away, Glider.