Defiant

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Clave

Senior Master Sergeant
3,200
79
Jun 15, 2005
Deep in suburban Surrey
This project has been rumbling on in the background for a few weeks, and now I am happy with it, and want to see what you all think before putting up on deviantArt etc.... As always, you get to see it first...
 

Attachments

  • FMk1_GB_264Sqn_Dev.jpg
    103.9 KB · Views: 154
Nice. Always liked the Defiant too. Would like to fly it, looks like an easy flyer. But I wouldn't want to fight in it. In that realm, it looks like a death trap.
 


It was switched to night operations (pics not done yet) where it had some degree of success. Flying directly below or to the side, the turret could swivel through quite a wide arc, and of course the 4 machine guns were very close together, so the firepower was concentrated.

But, there were many things against it too - the turret was extremely heavy, and it had the same engine as the Hurricanes and Spitfires of the time, so the performance lagged behind any fighter.

It was withdrawn from combat in 1942, for a new role in Air Sea Rescue. It was a simple enough conversion with canisters under each wing containing a dingy to be dropped into the sea.

The last gasp of the Defiant was as a target tug - a pretty low-grade job for this ingenious design...
 
Awesome as usual, Clave. [wait for it...]

Okay, here I go. I always like your subjects, as it makes me thing about what I've seen. I am only superficially familiar with the Defiant. However the rear antenna certainly cannot be that long unless it retracts, right? The geometry would make the main landing gear 20ft tall. Am I missing something about this variant? I have attached a photo that looks like yours, but can't imagine how that would work without retraction. Help Micdrow!

Another couple of questions.

Wasn't there a seat brace visible behind the rearmost window?

And I also thought that the .303s were belt fed from the outtermost side (e.g., the L-.303s fed from the L-side, and R-.303s fed from the R-side).
 

Attachments

  • 1.jpg
    10.3 KB · Views: 134
  • 1-1.jpg
    17.5 KB · Views: 136
  • 1-2.jpg
    17 KB · Views: 136
  • 1-3.jpg
    4.1 KB · Views: 133
Hi Matt,

>However the rear antenna certainly cannot be that long unless it retracts, right?

Right! It did in fact retract - at least, if all went as planned.

From "Turret Fighters" by Alec Brew:

"Sqn Ldr. Hunter [of 264 Squadron] had arrived at the factory on 11 April [1940] hoping to test this aircraft [a Defiant with a constant speed propeller], but it was not yet ready. He did take the opportunity to complain about the retracting rear wireless mast, which was snapping off at the rate of one a day because it did not retract whe the wheels were lowered, and hit the ground on touchdown. When he left Wittering there were only three Defiants with an intact rear mast. An investigation was instituted by the company."

Quite a good book, by the way - my most recent read, and I'm delighted to see that Clave has turned his attention to the Defiant, producing one of his great profiles to go along with my reading

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)
 
Wasn't there a seat brace visible behind the rearmost window?

I spotted that about 10 minutes after I posted - I knew something was missing, but couldn't quite put my finger on it.

The aerial arrangement was strange, but makes sense in the light of having a turret swiveling around...

And thanks for the comments everyone!

I shall be off to make a few more versions now that the basics are right...
 

Attachments

  • FMk1_GB_264Sqn_Dev.jpg
    103.8 KB · Views: 131
Awesome!
The Defiant was a victim of doctrine, not engineering. The plan was to fly beneath a fleet of bombers and eviscerate them. An idea that didn't pan out. Good effort.. the Defiant is guilty only of daring to foresee the future
 

Users who are viewing this thread