SaparotRob
Unter Gemeine Geschwader Murmeltier XIII
I don't think of the Blenheim as a wannabe fighter. It was voluntold it was a fighter.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Take a look at how the P-26 responded to the Japanese invasion of the Philippines in December 1941.All airforces had deadwood. It's a fact that you can't replace your entire inventory at once. The USAAF still had P-26s based at Pearl Harbor on Dec 7 1941.
True. Just like the Gladiator. Deadwood was the term used by the original poster. I would think obsolescent is more appropriate.Take a look at how the P-26 responded to the Japanese invasion of the Philippines in December 1941.
"Deadwood" or not, the Peashooter made an accounting of itself.
When the aircraft is now 9 years old (as it was the case with P-26 taking off in late 1941), then it is probably obsolete.True. Just like the Gladiator. Deadwood was the term used by the original poster. I would think obsolescent is more appropriate.
A lot is timing.When the aircraft is now 9 years old (as it was the case with P-26 taking off in late 1941), then it is probably obsolete.
When a brand new design is of dubious usability (= Defiant), or it is a repurposed aircraft of another category pressed into the role that is unsuitable for it (= fighter Blenheims), or it is of outdated layout & performance when 1st flown (Gladiator) - this is probably a deadwood.
The P-82 (only became F-82 on 11 June 1948) was a optional 2-pilot aircraft. The 2nd aircrew could be a relief pilot for very long-range missions, a radar operator for a night fighter, a camera operator for a recon version, a passenger, a trainee pilot, or the seat could be left empty altogether and still be effective in fighter missions.In fact, it should have been written P-38 (I should read what I'm writing), and not for the Fokker G I because it was not a single-seat fighter but a multi-seat destroyer concept (like the Bf 110).
F-82 yes .. it would fall into that category (regardless of the two pilots). Even though the F7F is better known in its two-seater NF variants, it was designed as a single-seater.
That's why I didn't include Mosquito either.
There was little good about the Defiant. A rather untested concept didn't work out very well is the best than can be said about it.
Had the shooting started in the Spring of 1939 Blenheim fighters might have done OK (not great) against Bf 110s with Jumo 210 engines
Problem was that the Blenheim fighters really didn't go to war until the Fall of 1939 and then the Spring of 1940.
And the "oh so wonderful" new fighters that were supposed to replace them were nowhere to be found.
And no improvements (none, nada, zip, zilch) were made for quite some time.
even things like just trimming the plane up a little bit.
A little sheet metal on the nose, clip a little off the wing tips, paint and sand the thing a bit better, take off the turret for fighter duties?
Bingo.Unfortunately the availability of the Gladiator and Blenheim meant that the better planes could be kept at home while the Gladiator and Blenheim went off to defend the empire.
The Italians and Japanese did not get the memo that they were supposed use old obsolete aircraft in 1940-41-42 just to keep thing fair.
Similarly the Blenheim fighter started to equip 4 squadrons in Dec 1938 (a couple of months after Munich ) and 3 more squadrons got their first Blenheim IFs in Jan 1939.
Had the shooting started in the Spring of 1939 Blenheim fighters might have done OK (not great) against Bf 110s with Jumo 210 engines
Problem was that the Blenheim fighters really didn't go to war until the Fall of 1939 and then the Spring of 1940.
And the "oh so wonderful" new fighters that were supposed to replace them were nowhere to be found.
And no improvements (none, nada, zip, zilch) were made for quite some time.
even things like just trimming the plane up a little bit.
View attachment 797767
A little sheet metal on the nose, clip a little off the wing tips, paint and sand the thing a bit better, take off the turret for fighter duties?
God forbid the British fit a better engine between 1938 and the summer of 1940Even a little bit better.
Some of the gun packs were used on MK IV Blenheims which were heavier and had more drag with rather predictable results. But in 1940/41 the Beaufighters were needed for nightfighting and the Blenheims were shuffled off to maritime patrol/strike.
Unfortunately the availability of the Gladiator and Blenheim meant that the better planes could be kept at home while the Gladiator and Blenheim went off to defend the empire.
The Italians and Japanese did not get the memo that they were supposed use old obsolete aircraft in 1940-41-42 just to keep thing fair.
That long range will be available to the MkIV; the MkI was with lower fuel quantity - 287 gals vs. 465 for the MkIV.By late 1939 the Blenheim IVf was also beginning to appear.
The other role that the Blenheim fighter was also able to fulfill due to its longer range was that of convoy escort, initially in Fighter Command until March 1940 when responsibility passed to Coastal Command.
The Ha 41/109 family of engines was criminally under-used by the Japanese. Stick these two on a fighter size of Ki-46 already by 1941 (1942 for the 109), and there is a performer that can also carry a heavy firepower. Don't over-do the internal fuel tankage - use the drop tanks to provide the required range, while making sure that internal tanks are of the self-sealing type.
Americans - someone (Douglas? Curtiss? NAA?) make a simple fighter with two V-1710s on the wings, with the idea that two 37mm cannons are carried in the nose, as per USAAC wishes and blessings. Switch these for 6-8 HMGs, perhaps even install the turbos later - might be easier to do on a classic twin, than to retrofit that on a 1-eng
I am forever baffled by the idea that twin engine fighter (with a pair of under 1000hp engines)was too expensive or used too much fuel but a single engine fighter of 2000hp was just the thing that was wantedThat, as well as RAF (AM) willing to pay both for Beaufighter and Whirlwind, puts into sleep the notion that a 2-engined fighter would've been curtailed in their operations in 1940 because supposedly there was lack of fuel in the UK.
I am forever baffled by the idea that twin engine fighter (with a pair of under 1000hp engines)was too expensive or used too much fuel but a single engine fighter of 2000hp was just the thing that was wanted
I blame the apparently successful Bristol F.2 Fighter for encouraging the idea of the twin seat, single engined fighter with strong rear armament. Though the Defiant needs a forward firing armament to complete the spec.There was little good about the Defiant. A rather untested concept didn't work out very well is the best than can be said about it.
I blame the apparent lack of mathematical ability of the RAF planners.I blame the apparently successful Bristol F.2 Fighter for encouraging the idea of the twin seat, single engined fighter with strong rear armament. Though the Defiant needs a forward firing armament to complete the spec.
Agreed.Air Ministry was paying, in 1940, for a bomber-sized day fighter that had - in an expensive way - 2800 HP and carried 550 gals of fuel.
A fighter that has a 300-350 sq ft wing, two Merlins, 4 cannons (earlier 12 .303s), is lighter by a few thousand pounds, and carries 200-300 gals of fuel seems like a bargain. Both in purchase and in usage.
It even does not fear the German fighters.
They did do the math - minimum distance from Germany to UK is ~250 miles one way, more if you avoid Dutch airspace; even Bf.110 isn't able to make it to much of England on internal fuel. Defiant was reasonably successful versus bombers when single engine fighters weren't around. It also did OK against Bf.109s until they realized it could shoot back and went to head on attacks.I blame the apparent lack of mathematical ability of the RAF planners.
BP project Sabre / CentaursYes, Defiant would have been better if it was designed around Sabre/Vulture allowing for forward firing guns and extra wing area to go with extra weight. But those engines weren't available at the time/putting them in single seat fighter is always going to be better.
Don't economies of scale factor into this:But the Air Ministry thought the Whirlwind was too expensive while the Big Hawker fighters ( Typhoon/Tornado, either engine) would be just the thing in 1941.
Sometimes their stated reasons did not line up with reality which leads to some of the later questioning/doubts.