BP Defiant: any plausible evolution?

[stona]

I do agree that it should be better if the plane is designed from ground up for a particular engine, but there is plenty of instances when a that was not the case, and the up-engined planes soldiered rather well in many air forces.

Like a Rolls Royce powered P-51

Steve

 

[GregP]

I think the Defiant could have been turned into a good night fighter. But it would have needed some forward-firing armament. It could have been developed with the four 20 mm cannons and could have had the turret replaced with a radar unit. It would probably have out-performed the Bf 110, which was a good night fighter.

You could have had two single-seat Defiants for every Mosquito you were willing to give up.

Personally I think it was a large mistake for Boulton-Paul to have not designed in a forward-firing gun provision, even if that meant adding more wing area; I would never have funded the prototype without some forward-firing guns, but that's just my opinion. Also, I'd have wanted more Mosquitos, not fewer, so the Defiant would never have gotten off the ground if I were making the decisions. Still, it could have been made useful. The question is would it have been more useful than what really happened? That's a what if I can't answer.

 

[tomo pauk]

Defiant was a good night fighter (but not for long distances), and it was featuring a radar set before it's LW counterparts did so. The 4 LMGs seem as a hint for Schraege Musik
Mossie was introduced much later, the only competition for funding in NF role being Beaufighter.

 

[The Basket]

One role is Naval fighter for the FAA as it would be no worse than others.

My favourite is the British Shturmovik. Slow and heavily armoured with rockets and 40 mm cannon akimbo.

Imagine that over Normandy.

 

[norab]

put in forward firing guns, delete the turret and replace with additional fuel tanks and and use it to loiter near german fighter bases to attack returning 109's who are low on fuel. If the germans mount a cap to protect the bases, those fighters aren't availible to protect the bombers and loseses go way up

 

[Shortround6]

Uh, Guys, the Defiant was Slightly smaller than a Hurricane, somewhat heavier, did not perform as well.

Pulling the 600lb or so turret and the 200lb gunner and replacing it with forward firing armament (eight .303s with 350rpg is about 440lbs, four 20mm cannon with just 90 rpg is about 813lbs) AND extra fuel is just going to be putting up a nice target for the Germans to practice on. Loosing British pilots over France during the Bob isn't smart and the modified Defiant certainly offers nothing in performance to think it is going to do any better in the Rhubarbs of 1941-42 than the planes that were used.

Off course if you just jack up the canopy and fuel filler cap and change everything else there is no telling what kind of performance you can come up with

 

[nuuumannn]

I think the Defiant could have been turned into a good night fighter.

It already was a good night fighter; Defiants shot down more German aircraft at night over Britain than any other type between late 1940 and late 1942. The NF Mk.II had AI radar fitted.

But it would have needed some forward-firing armament.

Can't say I agree with this idea; that would have taken away its raison d'etre. Adding forward firing guns without removing the turret would have made it heavier and with less fuel, making it practically useless. The concept of the turret fighter was as a bomber destroyer, using the flexibility of a moving turret to attack bombers at their weakest points, along their flanks and under their bellies. They were designed to attack in flights of four aircraft, which were designed to break up the tight formations. Any stragglers were taken out by single-seaters waiting nearby. In practise at night the turret fighter was very effective, but the Defiant's biggest problem was that it was too slow. As for the Schragemuzik idea, Defiant night fighters learned that the best chance to secure a kill was to attack from below and behind, firing the guns obliquely up into the bomber's belly.

Interestingly, the Air Ministry so liked the idea of turret equipped night fighters that specifications for twin engined night fighters with turrets were released. Both the Beaufighter and Mosquito were considered for fitting of turrets and a Beaufighter actually was, but a mock up of the Mossie was done - against GDH's wishes since he thought the idea a stupid one.

A pic of the prototype K8310 without a turret (source via NMS),

A couple of 20 mm cannon in each wing wouldn't look out of place.

 

[oldcrowcv63]

It's certainly a reasonably good looking aircraft. Does that mean that it's difficult to build an ugly fighter around the Merlin? I better check to see what powered the Fairey 'cuda! OH NO!!! It's NOT.. It can't be!!! OMG. I thought it was impossible to build an ugly aircraft around such a beautiful engine.

 

[pbfoot]

It already was a good night fighter; Defiants shot down more German aircraft at night over Britain than any other type between late 1940 and late 1942. The NF Mk.II had AI radar fitted.



)

A kid throwing rocks would almost be as effective , just for conversation how many aircraft were downed by nightfifhter in 41....maybe 10

 

[nuuumannn]

A kid throwing rocks would almost be as effective

Yeah, 10 does sound about right though! The Brits had no real effective night fighters in 1940; the Hurri was okay and the Blenheim was just rubbish.

 

[stona]

The Brits had no real effective night fighters in 1940;

We had no effective means of making interceptions at night. I cost Dowding his job.
Cheers
Steve

 

[buffnut453]

At least that was the excuse given...