Which fighter brought the biggest new advantage when introduced?

I voted for Bf109. The 262 has its obvious merits, but for reasons outside its control its overall impact on the war was negligible.

The Bf 109 however appeared when the Gladiator, hell even the Hawker Fury II, was still only on test! This cantilevered monoplane with its 300mph plus potential frightened us to death. It was a signal of Germany's intent, and it was why we had the Hurricane, Spitfire and all the investment and expansion that went hand in hand with them in the second half of the 1930's. Yes we talked of appeasement and treaties, but thanks to this and its ilk we were making sure we prepared for war, thankfully.

I had to go with the Me 262 just due to the shock value - which was probably somewhat short lived.

I also think the P-38 had a unique advantage for it's pilots. Unfortunately, this advantage could also be a disadvantage. It's twin tail boom made it easily identifiable to friendly pilots and more importantly, to flak happy gunners in the Pacific(no offense intended), which probably reduced the loss rate from friendly fire. However an enemy pilot could easily pick you out in a furball. A twin engined fighter is also an advantage when you consider the redundancy of having two engines. But all in all I'd have to say the advantages the P-38 offered its pilots did not make it a war changing plane like the P-51.
The entrance of the P-51 completely altered the course of the strategic air war over Germany.

carbonlifeform said:

I also think the P-38 had a unique advantage for it's pilots. Unfortunately, this advantage could also be a disadvantage. It's twin tail boom made it easily identifiable to friendly pilots and more importantly, to flak happy gunners in the Pacific(no offense intended), which probably reduced the loss rate from friendly fire. However an enemy pilot could easily pick you out in a furball. A twin engined fighter is also an advantage when you consider the redundancy of having two engines. But all in all I'd have to say the advantages the P-38 offered its pilots did not make it a war changing plane like the P-51.
The entrance of the P-51 completely altered the course of the strategic air war over Germany.

Click to expand...

The P-38's main advantage was concentrated firepower, IMO. The ability to just shoot straight instead of trying to shoot from the wings allowed for much greater engagement distances. I think they should have left off the big malfunctioning cannon and gone whole hog with 8 .50s. It's a shame we didn't reinvent the minigun until Vietnam, a .50 caliber gatling would have been terrifying for enemy fighters.

Me 262 in my opinion.
I am well aware that this particular plane model didn't get the time to do much good for Germany back then, but it was a huge technical step forward, compared with the various other planes from all over the world at the time.

Nice poll. However the Heinkel was some of the most inovative aircraft to be developed. A lot of the ideas were taken and shared with other German aircraft. Heinkel should be given a lot of credit. He-178 was the first jet propelled manned aircraft.

Yeah, yer right about the concentrated firepower. And I do believe some units did get rid of the cannons and went with the 8 .50's although I could be wrong.
If they had fitted a pair of Merlins into the P-38 and kept to the .50's without the cannons,(or at least went with cannons that worked) the P-38 would have indeed been a truly fearsome weapon and could well have become the greatest multi role fighter of the war.

The ME262 was a huge jump in performance but I don't believe it was a surprise as Britain and the US had advance notice about it's development and had jets of their own in the works. The A6M was a huge surprise because of it's overall impact on the war. Because of it's long range, it could be places where no other fighter could be expected to be and it's performance, flown by superbly trained IJN pilots made it almost unbeatable.

The Me 262. Agreed that while its entry into the war was shocking and negligable, its value in the history of avaition is inmessurable. Yes, the Allies were working on jet design but the type of jet engine used by the Me 262 was more efficent and is mostly the blueprint for engines today (centrifugal-flow vs axial-flow ). It ushered in a whole new way of waging aerial warfare and almost overnight made every piston-engined fighter or aircraft obsolete. In terms of what it did just for the war, maybe not much but for aviation history, it was a whole new world.

I kind of agree with both of you. The 262 was a technological marvel, it represented the pinnacle of jet technology for its time.

But it did not have anything really revolutionary or surprising either. It was not the first , not even the first to enter squadron service, and there is nothing revolutionary in its technology that the allies did not have comparable solutions.

If you expand the original thread, to look at the impact of a fighter, as I did, and pay less attation to the purely technical side of the equation, I doubt the 262 can be seen as the most influential . Perhaps the He 178, perhaps the zero, perhaps the P-51. Each had an impact on either warfare, or technology or politics, or a combination of all three. Its then a question of estimating how much effect....my money was on the zero, but thats just an opinion

1 The He 178 was not a fighter, but it certainly deserves mention for its postion as the only jet aircraft of the 1930's

2 The allies also developed axial engines, and flew them.

Waynos said:

2 The allies also developed axial engines, and flew them.

Click to expand...

They also worked a lot better. Axial type compressors can be more efficient, but for the low thrust levels and low pressure ratios being produced there isn't a great deal of difference between axial and centrifugal types. In fact, the axial type used on the 004 was less efficient than the British centrifugal types. On the other hand, axials are more complicated, heavier, harder to build, have narrower performance bands and were generally a pain to get right.

But to gain more power wouldn't an axial be more efficent as you would just add more rotating blades behind those already there? That makes for a slimmer design as opposed to the centrifugal-flow which was a little more bulkier and not so stream-lined?

Not disagreeing on your points about the Allies having the better engine but the 004 was the first to be 'efficently' (loose term ) used in ops.

To bolster the case for the A6M and it's impact on the war with it's before 1941 unheard of range and performance. I am reading a new book about the "Marianas Turkey Shoot" and the Japanese were able to launch carrier strikes at least 100 miles further than the US because of the range of the A6M. Many of the IJN strikes were composed of A6M fighter bombers and the other strikes were escorted by A6Ms. This was in June of 1944 and the Japanese were still reaping the benefits of the A6M's long range. If not for the US submarines and the inexperience of the IJN pilots, the battle might have been a much closer run thing.

Njaco said:

But to gain more power wouldn't an axial be more efficent as you would just add more rotating blades behind those already there? That makes for a slimmer design as opposed to the centrifugal-flow which was a little more bulkier and not so stream-lined?

Click to expand...

Another turbine stage could take more energy from the flow and give more power for a turboprop, but probably wouldn't be suitable for a jet. The low pressure ratio in the 004 means it probably wouldn't be a good idea. Greater mass flow (i.e. larger diameter or more rpm) or higher temperature are how to increase thrust in a turbojet. Junkers went for higher temperatures with late model 004s with new turbine blades, but reduced rpm because of some nasty vibration issues. Axial types are generally smaller diameter, but longer. There doesn't seem to be much difference between the two for these thrust levels given that the nacelles on the Me 262 gives more drag than the fatter Meteor ones.

I believe the Bf 109 in the Spanish Civil War was the most significant of the polled fighters because it marked the beginning of the era of the "modern" WWII fighter and also introduced new tactics and formation guidelines widely used in WWII, such as the "finger four" formation and emphasis on vertical fighting over dogfighting.

I would say Zero, when introduced over China in 1940. These were combat trial quantities a couple of sdns, but within the scale of that air war it completely changed the situation. The main air campaign was one by the JNAF against Chinese cities to force a collapse in Chinese morale. The Type 96 hadn't had the range to escort bombers against inland cities (like the Nationalist wartime capital at Chongqing), and the bombers suffered too heavily from Chinese fighters when unescorted in daylight, as demonstrated right from the start of the war in 1937. Even against targets Type 96's could reach with drop tanks, the match up v Soviet type fighters (I-16), often with Soviet pilots, but even those piloted by the Chinese, was in the JNAF's favor but not overwhelmingly. Soviet pilots were withdrawn before the Zero came but the balance still changed to absolutely no contest with I-16 v Zero, virtually no Zeroes were lost at all, and the opposing AF soon basically refused to face them. And the Zero could go anywhere the bombers needed to. The Zero gave a huge new advantage when first introduced which in relative terms outstrips any of the other cases.

In Me-262 case there'd be a strong argument for step in *performance*, and future *potential*; latter also seems to be the argument in favor of Bf109 in Spain, but the degree of change in *advantage*, especially v opposing fighters, wasn't as great. The Me262 was in fact quite unsuccessful against the piston fighters it met in the circumstances pertaining, for which there are various explanations but it didn't do any better against them, if even as well, as German piston fighters were doing at the same time. It did have more capability to ignore Allied fighters and go for bombers. The Bf109 in Spain IMO should be considered for the new advantage it gave to all forces on the Nationalist side, not just to the Germans by substituting Bf-109B for He-51: the increment of advantage over CR.32 equipped units on the same side wasn't as dramatic. And the Bf109B wasn't able to allow whole new operations previously impossible with any other fighter on the Nationalist side.

The P-51B situation had the same elements as the Zero over China, extending reach of daylight escort, and better match up v intercepting fighters. But P-51B v P-38's and P-47's didn't improve the USAAF's situation over Germany in 1944 by quite as much relatively in either respect as Zero v Type 96 improved the JNAF's situation over China in 1940.

Joe

I'm inclined to agree with JoeB. I voted 262 because it was a quantum leap in performance but one could debate whteher it was effective. I would point out that the tactical situation relative to airfield security was extremely poor for the Me 262 which reduced its potential impact.

But if results based on performance is the determinant, the Zero deserves major consideration.

The Mustang had the greater impact from the time it was introduced through the end of the war but it wasn't so much of a performance boost over the 109 and 190. What was critical is that its performance envelope of superiority happened to be at the altitudes that the 109 and 190 were forced to engage, and where they were forced to engage (over its own airspace).. Ditto the Zero through 1942 and mid 1943.

I voted P-51B
Unless I misunderstood the question

Which fighter brought the biggest new advantage when introduced

rather than

Which fighter promised the biggest new advantage when introduced

then the P-51B brought the biggest new advantage, that of range and with it, the ability to carry escorted strategic bombing deep into Germany.

The Me262 was late to the fight and even then got there too few in numbers, these were watered down again with planes allocated to the ground attack role rather than taking on the bombers. If applied to the bomber-destroyer role it would easily have taken the vote; I can't see how the USAAF would have stopped it.

I think I voted for the A6M and JB's analysis is an extremely good one. The A6M's performance, particularly regarding it's range, despite reports from China, came as a complete surprise to the Allies in 1941-42. It has been said that the Japanese would never have undertaken the conquest of much of the Pacific if the Zero had not existed. That is a huge impact.