fastmongrel
1st Sergeant
I would wager a DH Tiger Moth with a Lewis gun was better than the Roc.
Boulton Paul Defiant Rationale
- Thread starter MIflyer
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I would wager a DH Tiger Moth with a Lewis gun was better than the Roc.
They were officially designed to be fully functional passenger aircraft that were really designed to be quickly configured into bombers. The Germans were forbidden from having an air-arm, and as a result were forbidden from producing aircraft above a given size period, producing any combat aircraft regardless of size: They were permitted to build some transport aircraft, and mail-planes and abused it.
The He-111 served with some success with Swissair
And what a name for it -- when you drop bomb on something, particularly incendiaries -- you get a *lot* of "smoke".
Yeah, but with different turbochargers, a pressurized compartment, possibly bigger wings...
It worked with Schrage Music... who knows how many British bombers were just a 'blapped...
Well you had the bomber guys doing their thinking and fighter guys doing theirs. They might not have been as coordinated as you'd think
The Basket
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,712
- Jun 27, 2007
The issue is missed.
Not how good the Defiant is or the P.94 is but make do and mend.
A hypothetical question when all aircraft are banned and only the Defiant is allowed which then has to replace the Boeing 747 on transatlantic routes. Can it be done?
In my view probably not as I don't think the Defiant had the passenger capacity. But it's fun to pontificate. Let's not take this too serious.
Gloster F7/30? Not the F5/34?
Not how good the Defiant is or the P.94 is but make do and mend.
A hypothetical question when all aircraft are banned and only the Defiant is allowed which then has to replace the Boeing 747 on transatlantic routes. Can it be done?
In my view probably not as I don't think the Defiant had the passenger capacity. But it's fun to pontificate. Let's not take this too serious.
Gloster F7/30? Not the F5/34?
Shortround6
Major General
Well, do you make do and mend an old, ill fitting and poorly suiting piece of equipment or do you spend the same amount of time/effort on something better suited to the purpose to begin with?
A lot of these proposals for using plane "X" is such and such a role seem to call for keeping the same outside shape but changing quite a bit under the skin. WHich is not easy or cheap.
The Basket
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,712
- Jun 27, 2007
The Defiant was already bought and paid for so using it in secondary roles or even finding new roles is not controversial.
What I have read the aircraft didn't snap in two or was unsafe to fly so that's a plus!
Common sense to take an existing design and improve it. And of course the manufacturer is going to promise gold and diamonds.
Not every combat aircraft is successful.
What I have read the aircraft didn't snap in two or was unsafe to fly so that's a plus!
Common sense to take an existing design and improve it. And of course the manufacturer is going to promise gold and diamonds.
Not every combat aircraft is successful.
Only in theory. The Hotspur missed the boat, came too late and was supposed to use the Boulton Paul turret. As far as I know the prototype never flew with anything other than a mock up. What might look like a two horse race was in fact a one horse race, with just the Defiant in it.
Cheers
Steve
Shortround6
Major General
The Defiant was used in new roles like target tug, gunnery training, air sea rescue flights and such.
Taking already built planes and trying to remanufacture them into something else is really fraught with difficulties.
If you are talking about an order for say 500 planes and turning the last 2-300 in the manufacturing queue (parts in pipe line but assembly not started) that may be a bit different but production/assembly has to stop while the testing of the hand built prototype and manufacturing drawings are done (and any new tooling is built) which can delay things by months.
There are a lot of suggestions like tanking the fuel tanks out of the wing (from just outboard of the landing gear) and sticking them in the fuselage where the turret was, this works well for putting the guns where the fuel tanks were (with the associated drawings and parts ) but not so well for the fuel.
the turret is behind the center of gravity (about 30% of the wing cord on most planes give or take) and there are going to be major changes in trim as the fuel is used.
Yes you could move the pilot back and put the fuel where the pilot used to be but now you need even more new parts and drawings.
There are suggestions to use it as a bomber or CAS aircraft. You can't put a single large bomb under the fuselage, the landing gear is in the way and you block airflow to the radiator. You could put a bomb on each wing like the Hurricane but then you don't have a plane that will do anything a Hurricane won't do.
ANd you have the same engine the Hurricane uses trying to lug around 700lbs more weight even after you yank the turret (and that does not include ballast to keep the plane in trim unless you can move an awful lot of internal equipement.)
You could keep the wing (and landing gear) and engine and design a whole new center fuselage to connect the engine, wing and tail to get the CG in the right position over the wing but that delays the whole project and runs up the cost and has factory workers painting the walls while waiting for something better to do.
Shortround6
Major General
That required the cooperation of the enemy sending the bombers.
One wonders how well the Defiants would have done against Bf 110s?
I mean in places like Scotland and North England which could only be reached with the Bf110 fitted with long range tanks.
They may have needed protection by the RAF's S/E fighters.
That would have seemed reasonable as they were not considered to be as effective against bomber formations as the Defiant.
Cheers
Steve
fastmongrel
1st Sergeant
If the Defiant is doomed by 20/20 hindsight what replaces it in its 2nd line duties of Target Tug, Air Sea Rescue, and Pilot training. They are all vital tasks that will need some sort of aircraft to cover them.
Well, the British had plenty of obsolescent types to fulfill those roles!
Cheers
Steve
Shortround6
Major General
The British may have had more target tugs than the rest of the world combined.
Being some what sarcastic here but quite of number of different types were either converted to target tugs after completion or built as target tugs on the production line and some of them were not very good at it. The remaining Hawker Henleys (designed as dive bomber) out of 200 being replace by Defiants in 1942 because of engine failures/short engine life.
Being some what sarcastic here but quite of number of different types were either converted to target tugs after completion or built as target tugs on the production line and some of them were not very good at it. The remaining Hawker Henleys (designed as dive bomber) out of 200 being replace by Defiants in 1942 because of engine failures/short engine life.
Smokey Stover
Banned
There was a degree of sceptics regarding the design and role of the Defiant. It should be remembered at the time the Defiant concept was drawn up, power turrets were thought to be an effective fighting tool. However, a few experienced airmen knew that in high speed combat the rear gunner/turret operator was effectively neutralised by the G forces of high speed combat. Not that the Defiant was fast. But this was all down to the weight of the turret. The overall flight characteristics were pretty good, and the Defiant was powered by the same Rolls Royce merlin engine as the Hurricane and Spitfire. So in hindsight, the turret and extra man should have been removed in favour of forward firing armament. In the beginning of the b.o.b the Defiant did give chasing 109's a bit of a surprise, but this was quickly negated by the Germans who learned to adapt their tactics accordingly. It certainly would have been interesting to see just how effective the Defiant would have been if it was designed as a bomber interceptor. I think personally it would have performed much like the Hurricane. Certainly a bit of an enigma as to why the turret issue was never resolved or simply deleted in favour of wing or nose mounted armament. To my knowledge the Defiant had no effective forward firing guns with the exception of maybe one or two .303's. Certainly no cannon were ever fitted to my knowledge. The weight of the power turret alone was enough to make the Defiant a bit of a dog to fly effectively in combat.
The Defiant never had any forward firing armament. It was not an operational requirement (it was explicitly excluded) and was therefore not part of the specification to which the aircraft was built.
Cheers
Steve
fastmongrel
1st Sergeant
Which obsolescent aircraft capable of towing a drogue at 250mph did the RAF have handy in large numbers.
fastmongrel
1st Sergeant
If your country has been under continuos aerial attack for months at a time wouldnt you fancy training your fighter pilots and AA gunners. I am sorry but you are posting this comment for about the zillionth time, only a person from a country that has never suffered air attack would make such a crass comment.
Glider
Captain
This might be of interest. As early as Jan 1940 there were severe doubts as to the practicality of the Defiant in combat and the rigour of the trials undertaken by AFDU
In Sept 1939 even Dowding had some doubts as shown in the end of point 4
In Sept 1939 even Dowding had some doubts as shown in the end of point 4
Shortround6
Major General
I am sorry but they used Westland Lysanders by the hundreds as target tugs (4 different marks) , hardly 250mph planes when towing a target.
200 Hawker Henleys, which overheated when towing target drogues, 336 Fairy Battles as target tugs, again hardly 250mph planes when towing the drogue.
Out of the 210 Defiant night fighters about 150 were converted to target tugs and the last 140 Defiant to leave the factory left as target tugs,
They even tried using Blackburn Botha's as target tugs after they proved unsuitable/dangerous as crew trainers.
The crews that flew these missions deserve all the respect that could possibly be given as it was a very necessary job to aid in Britain's defence. It was also a dangerous job, both from the live fire (which didn't always go where it was supposed to) and sometimes unsuitable planes they had to use.
I am sure that every large nation in WW II used target tugs which were most often obsolete aircraft. Later in the war some countries did use new aircraft.
It just seems like the British were loath to cancel production of an aircraft in the middle of a batch no matter how bad the plane performed or how ill suited it was to changing combat conditions. Some use could always be found for it, like target tug.
Crass are the men who put the crews into the air with planes that were not up to job and got them needless killed/injured.
