Another use for the Boulton Paul Defiant

The Hotspur was built to the same specification as the Defiant F.9/35 and was not a ground attack aircraft. It was based on the Henley, built to P.4/34, but the addition of the turret (only ever a mock up) to meet the later specification meant that it could no longer carry bombs.

I think you mean the Fairey P.4/34, the specification to which the Hawker Henley was built. This was supposed to be a close support aircraft and could carry a couple of 250lb bombs, externally. None of these aircraft entered service in the role envisaged in the specification. The 'light bomber' close support role had more or less evaporated by the outbreak of the war.
P.4/34 was a specification demonstrating that nothing had been learned from the debacle of P.27/32 (the much revised Hart replacement, which got horribly mixed up with B.9/32 and ended up with the Battle). When Ellington visited Fairey in January 1935 the company informed him that a 1,000lb bomb load would increase the structure weight and reduce performance, the very things the specification was supposed to avoid. Ellington observed that "the machine would come back to the single engine medium bomber" and advised Fairey that a 500lb bomb load was the maximum required. The bomb load and range of P.4/43 reverted to that of the Hart concept of a light high performance day bomber. This concept was in doubt and this is the principle reason why no production orders were placed for either the Hawker or Fairey designs.
At the end of 1935 the whole issue of the usefulness of light bombers in a war with Germany was reviewed. The review included not only tactical effectiveness but also financial and production considerations. It was part of a policy to maximise the RAF's bomb lift for a given cost, and light day bombers were not considered the way to go.

Cheers

Steve

Greyman said:

Depends what is meant by 'agility', but for what it's worth, a bit from AFDU Tactical Trials with the Defiant:

Defiant v. Spitfire

After some preliminary practice engagements, the Defiant was placed on a patrol line and a Spitfire instructed to attack when he desired. The full initiative in the attack was therefore given to the Spitfire.

As the Spitfire approached, the air gunner of the Defiant was able to open fire. The Defiant then went into a steep turn and was followed by the Spitfire. The engagement lasted about 10 minutes and the air gunner after the first five minutes had used up all his film. During the whole engagement the Spitfire was unable to bring his guns to bear and finally landed having failed to use his cine gun.

The following notes upon his manoeuvres were given by the Defiant pilot:-

(i) it is imperative to turn at an air speed of at least 160 m.p.h., because in a vertical turn the aircraft stalls at a much greater speed than when flying straight.

(ii) By losing height slowly, it is possible to maintain a Rate 4 turn and keep up the speed. At one time of the encounter the Defiant was on the tail of the Spitfire but below it.

(iii) At no time did 'G' affect the pilot or air gunner.

(iv) There is plenty of warning before the stall, which is gentle.​

Click to expand...

Those are pretty much the tactics employed by 264 Sqn under direction of Sqn Ldr Hunter. When attacked by enemy fighters, the Defiants would form a defensive circle and descend. Now, that doesn't help win battles but the tactic did prove successful compared to 141 Sqn which didn't follow these tactics and suffered markedly higher losses as a result.

Make its controls and instruments identical (or as near as possible) to a hurricane and spitfire then have a dual control seat where the turret is.

pbehn said:

Make its controls and instruments identical (or as near as possible) to a hurricane and spitfire then have a dual control seat where the turret is.

Click to expand...

You'll also want flight characteristics as close as possible to either. That would be very difficult.

The RAF didn't feel the need for dual Spitfires or Hurricanes to which pilots transitioned from advanced trainers. Why would it bother with a dual Defiant?
Cheers
Steve

stona said:

The RAF didn't feel the need for dual Spitfires or Hurricanes to which pilots transitioned from advanced trainers. Why would it bother with a dual Defiant?
Cheers
Steve

Click to expand...

Many forum members try to come up with alternate uses for some of these planes that, perhaps, should never have been built in the first place. Hundreds of Defiants were were turned into target tugs. The last 140 to come of the production line and 150 of the of the 210 MK II night fighters were converted to target tugs. Some MK Is were "converted" to Air Sea Rescue planes by mounting a carrier for an inflatable dinghy under each wing.


Trying to make a two seat advanced trainer out of redundant operational fighters that would still leave the pilots needing conversion training to actual operational aircraft seems like a waste of both time and hours of work for the conversions.
The British were using quite a number of Miles Master Trainers for advanced training


That were around 35-40mph faster than a T-6, a bit smaller, and had (in the radial version quite a bit more power).
Perhaps they had less need for a high performance two seat trainer?
By the end of 1942 many of the later Masters were being used for glider towing and for target towing.

I would also note that as later versions of the Spitfire and Hurricane came into service the older ones were shuffled off to operational training units where pilots were given at least some hours in the planes they would be flying between graduating from pilots school and being posted to an operational (combat) squadron.

I was suggesting a use because that is the topic of the thread. During the battle of Britain there was an increase in accidents which was put down to poor cockpit drill/discipline. I was proposing a plane just to check these procedures were learned.

Problem is that the cockpits were NOT standardized, aside from 6-8 instruments. So spending several hours in a different cockpit than a Spitfire or Hurricane cockpit does no good. Flap and landing gear handles and trimming wheels being in different spots or operating differently.

Shortround6 said:

Problem is that the cockpits were NOT standardized, aside from 6-8 instruments. So spending several hours in a different cockpit than a Spitfire or Hurricane cockpit does no good. Flap and landing gear handles and trimming wheels being in different spots or operating differently.

Click to expand...

My original post said to make the controls and instruments as close as possible, they all use the Merlin after all.

Controlling the engine wasn't the problem. Most of the accidents are going to be from not lowering landing gear, not setting flaps correctly, not adjusting the trim properly as landing gear and flaps are lowered.


In other words NOT the stuff in instrument panel directly in front of the pilot (and the British did do a pretty good job of standardizing the 6-8 primary flight instruments) but ALL the STUFF on both sides of the cockpit. Granted the engine and prop controls were somewhat standardized, that is moved in the same direction and were on the same side of the cockpit in various planes. Exact relation (distances/height) from seat could vary.
Trying to engineer a Defiant to duplicate either a Hurricane or Spitfire cockpit was probably a waste of effort.

Waynos said:

The best alternative role for the Defiant after 1940 would probably have as an airfield decoy

Click to expand...

No, but what about this? Replace the Merlin with a Hercules radial. Remove the turret and replace it with a fuel tank. Put guns in the wings. Make the wings fold upwards at the wing join just out from the undercarriage. You now have a robust single-seat fighter for the FAA with decent range.

pbehn said:

I was suggesting a use because that is the topic of the thread. During the battle of Britain there was an increase in accidents which was put down to poor cockpit drill/discipline. I was proposing a plane just to check these procedures were learned.

Click to expand...

A lot of the increase in accidents in this period was due to Fighter Commands attempts to use the Spitfire and Hurricane in the night fighter role.

redcoat said:

A lot of the increase in accidents in this period was due to Fighter Commands attempts to use the Spitfire and Hurricane in the night fighter role.

Click to expand...

True, but simple "cockpit drill" was also a big factor, maybe a symptom of hurried training.

Before we start going crazy converting Daffys into trainers by removing their turrets, consider the following. The Defiant proved itself effective as a night fighter and yes, the Beaufighter and Mosquito were better, but before either entered service in numbers (The Beaufighter had its own issues to sort out) the Daffy was there in numbers. Remember there were only two Defiant day fighter squadrons during the Battle of Britain, hardly sustainable numbers if losses mount. Three being shot down is not a large number, but it is during a patrol of six - that's half your resources; an unsustainable loss rate.

As night fighters, there were 13 to 16 Daffy equipped squadrons. Yes, they were biding their time until a better replacement came along, but without it, night bomber losses between end of 1940 and mid 1942 would not have been what they were - Daffys accounted for a greater number of German bombers by night than any other type. This proves an interim is better than nothing. The heads of FC were not finished with the Daffy as a fighter and despite the stigma of turret fighters, mainly brought about after the war, a night fighter specification released earlier in the war (can't remember the number off hand) was altered in October 1940 to accommodate a gun turret. This resulted in the turret armed Beaufighter, that actually went into combat, as well as plans to fit a turret to the Mosquito.

Daffys were officially declared obsolete in mid 1942 and were replaced gradually by Mosquitoes and Beaufighters. This explains why so many Daffy IIs were converted into target tugs, because they were officially declared surplus.

Night fighter training took its toll on pilots and Daffy training units were no exception. The largest Daffy operator was 60 OTU at East Fortune and the hills around southern Scotland had a few Daffy wrecks on them. 54 OTU at Charterhall had a bad reputation for accidents, to the extent that the field was nicknamed 'Slaughterhall'.

To condense nuuumann's post above. If you use Defiants for something else what will you use for a night fighter before Beaufighters are in quantity service for the role? Blenheims had a tough time keeping up with tail chases and were still needed as bombers.

The economics realities of modern warfare are that choices are 'either/or' not 'as well as' in the short to medium term. The Defiant existed. It had a production line. Major components were in quantity production. Fast target tugs were needed. Night fighters were needed. Both were needed 'now'. What else will you use? At that time the Defiant was the best choice from what was possible in time.