Least favorite WW II aircraft manufacturer?

[nuuumannn]

I guess the Defiant single-seat fighter could have worked if it was designed from the outset with that role in mind, but as SR stated, without considerable modification to the design it would not have been overly competitive. The BP design team had the knowledge and expertise to produce a thoroughly modern single-seat fighter before 1939, a pity they never got the chance.

About fuel tanks in the wings, yup; my argument as to why, when people state that the Defiant could have been the Bristol Fighter of WW2 if it had the turret and forward firing armament, I tell them it wouldn't work because the aircraft would have been even slower with terrible fuel capacity!

 

[GregP]

I'm thinking the turret with two 20 mm cannons in the cowling.

 

[Milosh]

I guess the Defiant single-seat fighter could have worked if it was designed from the outset with that role in mind, but as SR stated, without considerable modification to the design it would not have been overly competitive. The BP design team had the knowledge and expertise to produce a thoroughly modern single-seat fighter before 1939, a pity they never got the chance.

About fuel tanks in the wings, yup; my argument as to why, when people state that the Defiant could have been the Bristol Fighter of WW2 if it had the turret and forward firing armament, I tell them it wouldn't work because the aircraft would have been even slower with terrible fuel capacity!

How much re-design would be needed to add gun pods under the wings?

 

[GrauGeist]

How much re-design would be needed to add gun pods under the wings?

Better question still, how would the CoG be effected if the turret were removed?

 

[GregP]

No issue. Move the wings if necessary. It isn't that tough.

I used to plan for that in radio control aerobatic planes as well as changes to wing incidence.

You could take a so-so flier and turn it into a winner or vice versa.

 

[Milosh]

Details of the Type E, Mks.I, II and III

Position Tail
Power system Electro-hydraulic
Armament Four Browning Mk.II 0.303in. guns
Ammunition 2,500 rounds per gun
Field of fire Rotation 65° to either side
Elevation 60°
Depression 50°
Gunsight Reflector gunsight Mk.III
Weight (empty) 403lb. (183kg)
Weight (armed) 679lb. (309kg)

Moving the wing would be a major change but adding weights, like was done on the Spitfire's rear fuselage, could be done.

 

[GrauGeist]

Considering that at the time, it was essential to keep as many assets as they could in the air.

Why not stay focused on producing dedicated fighters instead of taking flyable aircraft offline, tying up valuable manpower all in an effort to turn something into a "fighter" who's performance would be comparable to a late 30's standard?

 

[GregP]

Why not try to HELP yourself?

I would.

 

[GrauGeist]

Why not try to HELP yourself?

I would.

Not sure where you're going with that one...

Anyway, the Defiant was in essence, a heavy Hurricane. The RAF already had Hurricanes. Why tie up manpower and resources trying to convert an existing aircraft to perform in a role that it's no longer competitive in?

The Defiant's top speed is 304mph (489kph) as designed, so removing the turret, relocating the wings, adding MG/cannon and all that would gain what? There is already the Spitfire, the Hurricane and Typhoon to start with.

Converting the Defiant in midstream would be like deciding that the SBD would make a great fighter, and trying to modify it to do a job other aircraft are already doing.

 

[Edgar Brooks]

Several of you are making the classic error of thinking only U.S.A.A.F., namely fighter-versus-fighter. The Defiant was conceived as a bomber destroyer, flying (in Flights of 3, or they got in each other's way) alongside, under, or in front of unescorted bombers, firing directly into the crew compartment. After the experience of public reaction to being bombed during WWI, the Ministry felt that they had to concentrate on shooting down bombers.
As soon as bombers got escorts, the Defiant's useful life, except (fleetingly) as a nightfighter, was over. Cannon were the way forward, since it was anticipated that German bombers would carry heavier armour, and the .5" was little better at penetrating it than the .303"*; add in the extra weight, slower rate of fire, plus lack of pilot ability to "aim off" accurately, and in 1940, it was never an option.
For the same reason, the cannon wouldn't go into the engine compartment; already slower-firing than the .303", the interrupter gear would have played havoc.
With the Hurricane and Spitfire carrying more powerful engines, plus cannon, by 1941, the Defiant was a dead duck, especially with the Typhoon to follow.
Lack of pilots was the problem during the Battle; there was no shortage of Hurricanes and Spitfires during 1940, which didn't help the Defiant's case, especially needing a crew of two.
* The standard reaction to this is to remind me of the successes of the P-51, P-47, etc., but I would remind those that we were concentrating on knocking down bombers (and bigger, 4-engined, versions were anticipated at some stage,) not fighters.

 

[GregP]

Great reasons why you can't do it or shouldn't. Now think of reasons why you can and should.

We already know they didn't in real life, but I see no reason why it could not have been done at LEAST in prototype form, with enough redesign to make it a better fighter than the Defiant was. Removing unnecessary structure when the turret was removed would lighten things up.

The question is, "Would it have been better than the Hurricane?" The answer is "We don't know" because they never tried except for the prototype which HAD all the structure in it for the turret.

 

[Edgar Brooks]

Great reasons why you can't do it or shouldn't. Now think of reasons why you can and should.

If the Air Ministry/RAF didn't want it, there aren't any.

 

[fastmongrel]

At what point is the need for a fighter to back up the Spit and Hurri recognised. By the time BP have taken the Defiant apart and redesigned it as a fighter probably changing a large proportion of the jigs in the process wouldnt it have been better to start with a clean sheet of paper.

 

[GregP]

Right. No deviation from real life, huh?

You're a devout follower. I'm not.

It could have been largely different ... but wasn't.

 

[Shortround6]

* The standard reaction to this is to remind me of the successes of the P-51, P-47, etc., but I would remind those that we were concentrating on knocking down bombers (and bigger, 4-engined, versions were anticipated at some stage,) not fighters.

The additional errors in the early 1930s .303 vs .5/.50 argument is that the early 1930's .5/.50 gun/s-ammo were rather different than 1943 US .50cal guns and ammo.
British .5 ammo was much less powerful than US .50 cal due to a 18mm shorter cartridge case of smaller diameter and a lighter bullet. Even the US changed from the M1 ball to M2 ball in the late 30s with higher performance ( and the associated other projectiles also got higher velocity) and the guns were boosted in rate of fire from under 600rpm to 800-850 rpm during 1940.

the 20mm Hispano also could not be synchronized. Which meant through the prop or in the wings.

 

[Aozora]

The Miles M.20 flew in September 1940, it already had superior performance to the Hurricane I and - had there been an "emergency" -it could have been built in large numbers as a back-up: while I have advocated for a turretless Defiant I am having some second thoughts because it would have required a major redesign. This photo of the prototype as a single seater gives no indication of how and where the gunbays would have been installed or where the fuel tanks displaced by the gunbays would have gone. (Found: an interesting thread on the Defiant, including some primary source documents http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/boulton-paul-defiant-7448.html )

 

[Edgar Brooks]

Sorry, I'm giving up (again.) I log in, then am told that I haven't logged in. I've had three goes at answering, and been refused; how this one made it through is a total mystery.

 

[pbehn]

Sorry, I'm giving up (again.) I log in, then am told that I haven't logged in. I've had three goes at answering, and been refused; how this one made it through is a total mystery.

click the remember me button

 

[tomo pauk]

The Miles M.20 flew in September 1940, it already had superior performance to the Hurricane I and - had there been an "emergency" -it could have been built in large numbers as a back-up: while I have advocated for a turretless Defiant I am having some second thoughts because it would have required a major redesign. This photo of the prototype as a single seater gives no indication of how and where the gunbays would have been installed or where the fuel tanks displaced by the gunbays would have gone. (Found: an interesting thread on the Defiant, including some primary source documents http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/boulton-paul-defiant-7448.html )

The Miles M.20 need to be compared with Hurricane IIA/B, since those have had the Merlin XX installed, too. The Hurricane IIA and B were as fast (330 mph), and was offering 50% more firepower (12 guns). In case the British have surplus Merlin XXs, they can install them in the Spitfires and have the 370+ mph fighter to take a part in the closing stages of the BoB.

The single seat Defiant might have some fuel relocated in the place once occupied by turret, but Id certainly would love to see some original stuff about that

 

[GregP]

In the books where I've seen pics of the Defiant prototype, it always says the prototype was ballasted to simulate the turret installation. So the performance would have been representative of a typical load without the drag of the turret.

It very obviously could have been built solely as a single seater, and I'm really wondering why it wasn't. To me, it LOOKS better than the Hurricane.