Revolutionary aircraft of World war 2?

Revolutionary?

V2


redefined what an aircraft actually was.....

subkraft said:

Revolutionary?

V2


redefined what an aircraft actually was.....

Click to expand...

A rocket?

Even IF you consider an vehicle that does not breath air, does not use lifting surfaces re-acting with air and is unmanned an aircraft the V-2 wasn't revolutionary, it was evolutionary.
Wernher von Braun certainly gave credit to Robert Goddard for saving the Germans several years worth of work.

I can see where the V-2 (A4) revolutionized the concept of military rocketry, but it was not in itself, revolutionary as rockets had been around since the ancient Chinese used rockets in warfare centuries earlier.

As far as the V-2 goes, it wasn't an "aircraft" like the Me163, Yokosuka MXY7, Bachem Ba349, Bereznyak-Isayev BI-1 and the Bell "X" series aircraft...

It was the ancestor of the ICBM.

The V2 can easily be considered revolutionary because of the impact it had on warfare, like what Dave said, the ICBM, also, Birtain, USA and the USSR tested and evolved A4 rockets post war, which had a big influence on their subsequent rocketry programmes. The guided rocket did change the face of warfare. Yes, Goddard was the first to bring about liquid fuelled rockets, but German experiments were conducted without influence from Goddard. The V2 took rockets into a more purposeful direction, its influence was enormous.

The V2 (or to give it it's correct name: EMW A4 (Electro Mechanical Works Aggregate 4, the "V" stood for Vergeltungs = Retaliation) was revolutionary in that it was a guided and had a strategic range. This is quite different from inaccurate gunpowder rockets tipped with a spear that had no hope of improvement

What was revolutionary about it was the technology that was copied from it.

Apart from the film cooled liquid propellant rocket motor there was the high speed electronic analog computer based auto pilot (the electronic analog computer was a German invention developed specifically for the V2, only electronics was fast enough, vibration resistant enough and able to handle the complex calculations, the engineer responsible Helmut Hoelzer ended up at NASA). Most influential was the PIGA accelerometer which provided the speed cutoff for the V2 and for the first time provided a 'strategic grade' instrument that made possible inertial guidance, the engineer responsible FK Mueller also ended up at NASA). PIGA's made it through to use in the MX missile where only errors in gravitational maps prevented accuracy to less than 18 inches, they were essentially perfect. The gas based fluid bearings developed (but not used) for the V2 also helped provide super accurate inertial navigation.

Inertial navigation revolutionized military navigation.

While the V2 wasn't an aircraft it did influence SAM design in the form of its derivative the "Wasserfall".

Moreover a V2/A4 derivative the A4b was an aircraft in that it had wings, this offered the range to reach British targets should France fall but also allowed terminal guidance. Two were launched and one made a successful re-entry though telemetry showed that a wing burned off. (test V2's had a telemetry system called Minerva to provide pressure, temperature and heading information). The A4b was supposed to be guided by a fully inertial guidance system based on a stable platform called the SG-66 which carried three gyros and accelerometers had been tested to improve 'ordinary V2' accuracy. It was to receive a mid-course update from a radar system and then autonomously control itself during a long range glide and controlled dive on to target. If optionally controlled to impact after a terminal popup to clear the radar horizon it was expected to have an accuracy of 120-180m (same as oboe as similar radar tech)

The "Redstone" missile, developed by US Army engineers and ex German engineers and at the US Army Redstone arsenal at Huntsville Alabama didn't have wings but did use a detachable war head which maneuvered by using navigation information from the ST-92 Inertial Navigation System to an accuracy of 300 yards (270m). Winged missiles which after re-entry used Ramjets were developed (such as the Navajo) but their complexity wasn't justified for the advantages in size/range that they offered when compared to standard ballistic missiles. There was German "Navajo' style proposals to have a winged V2 which after a reconnaissance mission returned its pilot via a ram jet to home. The A4b didn't have a ramjet and was simply to glide at high subsonic speeds till it reached about 10000m when it would dive (technically it could be intercepted or shot at unless the trajectory/range was compromised)

The V2 wasn't revolutionary in that it had little effect on the second world war since the launch sites were soon over run, but it's technology greatly influenced the world of warfare thereafter.

Moreover had the German Army managed to get the whole program move forward 1 year (operation beginning Sept 43 instead of Sept 44) would have completely revolutionized warfare and probably the outcome of the war if only to delay Overlord.

The 10,000th V2 produced was expected to take only 3750 hours to produce (same as a fighter aircraft) and use virtually no strategic materials mainly steel, plastic, ceramics. The 3rd Reich had 2 million people working in aviation production, design and development towards the end of the war. That is 80 million man hours per week assuming only 40 hours work) so potentially they could have produced 80,000,000/3750 = 20,000/week ie 80,000/month (the actual target was 5000/month). The fully guided versions which were to use boost phase beam riding or a more advanced gyro guidance system were supposed to guarantee the reentry point to within 500m (perhaps 1000m after tumbling through the atmosphere).

They were an expensive way of delivering explosives, especially over longer ranges, hence their limited use for Military such as the USAF which needed global reach to protect the free world but from the above statistics it can be seen that the Germans could have delivered a formidable amount of explosives, equal to the allied strategic bombing campaign albeit over shorter ranges, when they had no way to do so any other way. Any other development, such as jet bombers, would quickly be checked by the allies within say 6 months at most.

That makes the V2 revolutionary. It made every interceptor and radar obsolete.

(also the USAF forced the US Army to limit missile range to less than 100 miles which crushed their development)

Koopernic said:

The V2 (or to give it it's correct name: EMW A4 (Electro Mechanical Works Aggregate 4, the "V" stood for Vergeltungs = Retaliation) was revolutionary in that it was a guided and had a strategic range. This is quite different from inaccurate gunpowder rockets tipped with a spear that had no hope of improvement

Click to expand...

The Congreve Rocket on the 19th century was a "gunpowder rocket on a stick" and yet that 19th century antique achieved successes that the A4 did not: the Congreve initiated capitulations of targeted enemies. (Except for the 25 hour barrage of Fort McHenry during the war of 1812...all that acheived was a national anthem for the U.S.)

The next step was Hale's process of spinning the rocket to reduce drag and improving accuracy and was employed during the U.S. civil war by U.S. Army and Navy against the Confederates. The Confederates, as it happens, used the Congreve type in return.

As far as being advanced enough to avoid interception, I can't think of any defensive system in place during WWII that would intercept inbound Nebelwerfer, Katyusha or even the RP3 rockets.

So like I said above, the V-2 was not revolutionary in the sense of a rocket used in warfare, but it Revolutionized rocketry with it's advanced designs.

It is the grandfather of the ICBM (and space launch vehicles) and all modern rocket systems point back to this technology.

I'd like to throw another into the mix.

Ju 52

Revolutionized the air transport aspect of aviation and as a platform for paratroops. But the transport efforts alone would qualify.

Ford tri-motor .... Admiral Byrd took one to Antarctica.

Not sure if the Ju52 would qualify, there were quite a number of other types that did the same thing before and since, an exceptional example would be the Dakota (DC-3), that created a huge range of variants and some are still in working service around the globe.

While the Ju 52 was the first aircraft to support a sizable air lift of troops (in the Spanish Civil war) the British had been planning to airlift troops around the empire for quite some time.


"In February 1923, in Iraq, Vernons of Nos. 45 and 70 Squadrons RAF airlifted nearly 500 troops to Kirkuk,[1] after the civilian area of that town had been overrun by Kurdish forces. This was the first ever[2] strategic airlift of troops." from Wiki.

replaced/supplemented by Vickers Victoria's in the mid/late 1920s.


Capacity 24 troops.

Many later British bomber/transports and bombers retained this "24 troop" capacity, at least in initial design stages (one reason the Short Sterling fuselage was so big)

So like I said above, the V-2 was not revolutionary in the sense of a rocket used in warfare, but it Revolutionized rocketry with it's advanced designs.

Click to expand...

You are right to a degree, Dave, the A4 was not the first rocket used in warfare, but its revolutionary impact (if you'll pardon the pun) was that, unlike the other weapons, the A4 did herald a new era in warfare; the guided missile with the sophistication of the A4 changed strategic military thinking throughout the world. None of the other weapons spawned reproductions in other countries that went on to make such enormous changes to the state of the art of warfare.

the British had been planning to airlift troops around the empire for quite some time.

Click to expand...

...and actually doing so. The British Empire was a global power and the RAF created an element of transportation of its soldiers on such a scale that did not exist in any other air force at that time.

The all metal aircraft goes back almost to the dawn of Aviation. Most of the aluminium technology came out of German experience at building Zeppelins and I suspect the deterioration of wood quality in Germany and Austria during WW1.

Below left an all metal Junkers F.13 first flight 1920, it was a successful airliner. Junkers had an armored all metal ground attack aircraft in service during WW1. To the top is I think a junkers W31

Below an all metal Junkers G24 first flight 1924. The seaplane was used to rescue sailors from the crashed airship Italia.

Below the Junkers W33, this one is the "Bremen" which was the first aircraft to cross the Atlantic. (Lindbergh latter flew the other way), Dornier GS1 all metal fuselage but fabric wings first flight 1919

Dornier Delphin first flight 1920 all metal fuselage and wings, Dornier Super Wal 1930 carried 19 PAX

Rohrbach Ro 2 first flight 1919 all metal smooth skin, Messerschmitt M18 of 1926 (the successor the M20 crashed, killing Erhardt Milch best friend leading to life long enmity) also all metal. Willy Messershmitt designed an airfoil of excellent pitching characteristics for this aircraft.



The Germans seem to have worked out all metal smooth stressed skin production by 1926 at Dornier, Rohrbach, Messerschmitt and latter Junkers who used both smooth and stressed skin. Initially the skinning tended to be more non structural plate. Many of these commercial aircraft had to be built in Sweden, Holland or Italy to overcome the restrictions of the treaty of Versailles. Such needless restrictions which nobbled German industry and employment ironically helped Hitlers rise to power.

These metal aircraft showed themselves superior in bad weather and could continue flying when other aircraft of mixed construction or biplane types had to stop flying. The DC3 was to a degree a response to a Ford Trimotor crash (correction TWA 599 was a Fokker F.10 Trimotor) in which the wood glue had delaminated due to water ingress. This was an persistent issue and plagued even the Mosquito (in the tropics)

Stressed skin construction was perfected in the USA in the Boeing Model 247 and Douglass DC1/DC2/DC3. In Germany Erhard Milch ramped up the Luftwaffe quickly by ordering massive production of an out of date technology type known as the Ju 52 airliner improvised as a bomber (even junkers knew how to build stressed skin by then), the Ju 52 as it could easily be produced rather than the smooth skin designs then coming into service. Right decision or wrong?

Arguably if the Ju 52 had of been replaced with something equal to the DC3 in equal numbers in Luftwaffe transport service it might have changed the course of the war. The inferior speed, range-versus-payload of the Ju 52 versus DC3 meant that the airlift into the 6th Army at Stalingrad failed while at the same time Rommel had to be supplied in North Africa. The Destruction of the Transport squadrons supplying North Africa was the result of the Allies knowing the exact flight plans, routes and schedules due to enigma decrypts but the efficiency and speed of the DC3 still would have reduced attrition enormously. If Rommel remains active in Africa then the Invasion of Sicily/Italy is delayed. The larger number of pilots required also stressed the supply of pilots who were drawn from training squadrons. Heavy transport losses were also experience over Holland, Crete (due to enigma decrypt), the Damnask pocket as well as Stalingrad and Nth Africa.

The DC3 was the right plane at the right time.

I believe Junkers designed and built an all metal fighter early in WW1, it was a monoplane.

The DC3 was to a degree a response to a Ford Trimotor crash in which the wood glue had delaminated due to water ingress.

Click to expand...

I Believe you are referring to a Fokker tri-motor crash. The Ford tri-motor was all metal. It may have borrowed rather heavily from Junkers in design and construction techniques (Ford had to pay royalties after two court cases when selling planes in Europe) but the first Ford tri-motor was flying in 1926.

I stand corrected: TWA Flight 599 which crashed was a Fokker F.10 Trimotor not a Ford Trimotor. My apologies, I'll note my mistake in the original post. The DC2 entry in Wikipedia says the crash of TWA.599 spurred on all metal aircraft development. TWA of course was the first customer for the DC2(DC3 was slightly widened) and was thus motivated to move to metal construction.

For VikkingBerserker:
The Junker J.I which is the first all aluminum aircraft to enter production in 1917. It is a sesquiplane (half biplane) and also had a steel armored bathtub for pilot and engine. It was for ground attack. Slightly latter was the 1917 Junkers J.7 and J.9 monoplane fighters.


The 1915 junkers J1 (1 not I) was steel tube and mainly steal skinning taken from transformer lamination sheet.

Note the thick wing on the J9. The Germans (mainly due to Ludwig Prandle at Goetingen university) had worked out that thick wings were more efficient than thin wings. The problem had been that scaling effects on wind tunnels had left everyone the incorrect impression those highly curved thin wings with a concave bottom were more efficient, thats true only for small scale models. The Germans were the first to realize this, this made it possible to make a main spar thick enough to make the unbraced monoplane possible. Due to these wings the Germans 1918 fighters would have been a very nasty surprise to the allies. The Fokker D.VII Biplane designed by Reinhold Platz which had to be specifically handed over to the allies was one as was his parasol D.VIII. After that wind tunnels started opperating in compressed air or were made ultra large to eliminate Reynolds effects.

Reliable american air cooled radials played a big part in developing aviation reputation for safety in the inter war years and combined with metal construction really were a revolution.

I think chris is not presenting the aircraft as inhernetly revolutionary from a design pov though it undoubtedly had some unique features. I think he is suggesting that its employment led to the universal adoption of a new concept, and i tend to agree with him, for much the same reasons that I earlier suggested the Swordfish to be a revolutionary aircraft. Neither the Swordfish, or the Ju52 were inhernetly revolutionary, yet the concepts they represented, and pushed forward were each world shattering.

Neither of them introduced concept that were inherently new, but what they did do was to cement those concepts into military mainstream thinking, and thereby secure their position as revolutionary aircraft. Neither did the French revolutiuon or the American declaration of independance, yet in the same way as these political events captureed and immortalised a revolutionary concept, each of these aircraft made certain that the concepts for which they were employed became more or less permanent fixtures of modern warfare.

In the case of the Ju52, the revolutionary concept was in the way air transport, and its half brother, air assault can fundamentally affect the way that warfare, on a strategic level, can be affected by the logiustic support offered by a dedicated transport fleet. Invest in a transport fleet, and youve got the flexibility to completely change the way wars are fought.

For my beloved swordfish, the change was in the nature of naval warfare. Before the Swordfish, whilst there had been strident proponents of air power on the nature of naval warfare, nobody seriously thought that such aircraft could seriously challenge the supremacy of the capital ship. After the Swordfish (meaning its achievjmenbts 1940-1) nobody ever seriously challenged the supremacy of the aircraft (and more specifically, the aircraft carrier) as the supreme expression of naval power. nobody put to sea anymore confident that their battleships could ignore the possibility that they migt be hurt by carrier aircraft. Hitler, for example, forbade German capital ship deployment if there was a risk of a british carrier being present.

P-51 with its laminar flow wing.
Me-262

I think you need to make a distinction between revolutionary and radical. I can think of at least two modestly famous German planes that would be considered "radical" but not revolutionary - the Me 163 and Bv 141. The Komet was a radical and basically unsuccessful attempt at an extremely high performance rocket-powered interceptor, and the Bv 141 was a radical, but basically successful assymetrical obesrvation plane that died from prejudice as much as anything else. Other aircraft that could be considered radical include the Bv 40 glider interceptor, the Natter, the Northrop P-79 ramfighter and the Okha suicide bomb. Possibly the Do 335 and B-43 Mixmaster as well. None of these planes changed the course of aircraft design regardless of how innovative or advanced they might be.

A truly revolutionary airplane is the one that marks a major change (revolution) in design or tactics that "stick". In that context
I just don't get how somebody could claim the Me 262 was not revolutionary. Sure it was not the first jet plane or even the first jet fighter, but it was the first operational jet fighter and its speed advantage over conventional aircraft made it virtually uncatchable when operating at top speed. It heralded and symbolized the most revolutionary change in combat aviation since combat aviation began. This also goes for the Ar 234 (as the first jet bomber)as well, but in a way the concept of a light, high speed jet bomber was a dead end when jet fighter bombers arrived.

Since I am not considering weapons systems (missiles, radars, etc) but manned airplanes themselves, to be honest there are relatively few WW2-era planes that might truly qualify as revolutionary, but I can think of two...almost at different ends of the spectrum:

Polikarpov I-16 - the first operational fighter that combined all of the elements that came to characterize the classic WW2 fighter - cantilever monoplane with retractable landing gear and (in its initial versions) and enclosed cockpit canopy.

Boeing B-29 - the first true stratospheric long range bomber that formed the conceptual prototype for just about every US and (especially) Russian bomber designed and built into the 1960's

An honorable mention might go to the A6M Reisen as the first shipboard fighter capable of besting its land-based opponents, but since this was gained by weight-saving sleight-of-hand rather than a true advance in aviation technology, No.

Both the Bf 109 and Spitfire come close, since they added the one element that was missing from the I-16 - a high-performance altitude-rated in-line engine, but to me this is more an evolutionary improvement.