The technology of the Defiant was excellent. It's low top speed compared to the Spitfire was caused by the turret and the enlarged aircraft designed to carry it. Bolton and Paul could have made an excellent fighter simply by scaling the defiant down and removing the turret. If there was no Spitfire I would expect the specification F.9/35 for the defiant to be for a plain single seat fighter.
No Spitfire? (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter tomo pauk
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The technology of the Defiant was excellent. It's low top speed compared to the Spitfire was caused by the turret and the enlarged aircraft designed to carry it. Bolton and Paul could have made an excellent fighter simply by scaling the defiant down and removing the turret. If there was no Spitfire I would expect the specification F.9/35 for the defiant to be for a plain single seat fighter.
- Thread starter
- #222
Again - by what metrics? Wing series/profile choice? Radiator set-up? Usage of high-lift devices? Ability to lug cannons around in while still performing? Range/endurance? Maneuverability?
It had a turret, if the concept of a turret fighter worked then it was advanced, few other aircraft had them on at the time the Defiant was introduced, but although the turret worked well, the concept was wrong from the start.
Shortround6
Major General
Not really, most accounts say that the prototype Defiant when flown without the turret was very little faster (302mph?) than when the turret was fitted.
Scaling the Defiant down isn't going to work well, the Defiant may have been heavy, it wasn't large. It's wing was 8in short in span than a Hurricane's wing and 10 sq ft smaller in area,
It was 8 sq ft larger than the Spitfire wing. and 2 ft 6in bigger in span. Yes it was 4 feet longer than the Hurricane.
Defiant II with the Merlin XX engine (that powered a Hurricane II to 340mph) was only good for 313mph. (Flat black paint and radar aerials?)
BP had the wrong wing profile and screwed up the radiator/oil cooler set up.
buffnut453
Captain
The US wasn't shipping much of anything in terms of war materiel to the UK in 1938, and that's precisely when you'd need to procure an American fighter type to fill the void left by the Spitfire. As noted previously, the only viable way to have an American fighter as your premier air defence asset is to licence build the airframes in the UK. That just is NOT going to happen in 1938.
There is a massive difference between 1938 and 1940 when discussions of Merlins and Mustangs took place
I don't believe for a moment in service Hurricanes could do 340mph.
You need armour and SS tanks, and guns that worked, in 1940 the Spit and 109 were fifth generation fighters compared to everything else flying.
Last edited:
Without the turret the Defiant was still ballasted for the weight so the difference would only be the difference in drag.
The British didn't make the rules, Germany did, and without the Spit Britain looses.
- Thread starter
- #231
Hurricane IIA (8 MGs) should. As well, since it was powered by the best engine of 1940.
data sheet
Hurricane IIB (12 MGs instead of 8) was slower, the IIC (4 cannons) was still slower.
When?
The average speed across numerous airframes is a more accurate way to test speed, in service Hurricanes didn't average 340mph.
buffnut453
Captain
Exactly. To get a replacement for the Spitfire in a similar timeframe, the UK needs to have orders in place in 1938. Any later and the not-Spitfire won't be around for the Battle of Britain, leaving just Hurricanes (oh, and Defiants, Gladiators and Blenheim It's). Given enough Hurricanes, the BoB would probably still be won but by early 1941 it's completely outclassed....and you need a newer type with latent development capacity. And then you'd need to open up a production line in the UK, otherwise you aren't going to get enough of them to sustain the force. Again, exactly how many American aircraft (or tanks, or trucks or anything else of substantial.size) were licence built outside the US during WW2? I'm not aware of any....and yet you want the RAF to rely on entirely foreign production to maintain it's fighter force? Not gonna happen....period.
I don't agree, without the Spitfire the only option with the Hurricane is many more in number which could easily have been achieved both in UK and on Malta. 1000 Hurricanes would perform massively better than 500 Hurricanes and Spitfires, fewer chances to bounce and better results when you achieve a bounce. For the years later it may have been true but not for 1940 and by 1941 Adolf was off to Russia.
- Thread starter
- #235
When the loss is supposed to happen, and why?
The Basket
Senior Master Sergeant
- 3,712
- Jun 27, 2007
In 1940 Hurricane can hold the line so Sea Lion doesn't happen.
1941 is when Germans face east and that's that. No more threat of invasion.
In other theatres of war it's P-40s and Hurricanes all round. So Hurricanes were facing Fs and Gs anyway.
In my view the Spitfire is historically important but the Hurricane is historically vital.
1941 is when Germans face east and that's that. No more threat of invasion.
In other theatres of war it's P-40s and Hurricanes all round. So Hurricanes were facing Fs and Gs anyway.
In my view the Spitfire is historically important but the Hurricane is historically vital.
posting.... period at the end of a post isn't a winning argument. The Spitfire achieved nothing that more Hurricanes could have achieved until 1942 when the two stage engine was fitted. The Typhoon was forced into service early because the Spitfire Mk V couldn't handle the Fw 190. When war was declared the British were developing and or producing the Spitfire, Hurricane, Defiant, Typhoon and Whirlwind a ridiculous waste of effort mainly because war had not been declared and no one was certain what was needed.
It took three months on average to ship from the UK and P-51s were arriving in late 1941. If you have an aircraft factory with staff used to working with metal aircraft there is no reason at all that a shadow aircraft factory making P-51s couldn't have been made operational in UK 3 months behind that in the USA which means the aircraft are delivered at the same time. Packard did it with Merlins the other way around. Its OK being hard nosed and saying no one is going to license build our stuff in UK we want the jobs, well the war will have a different outcome then. BTW Disney released the Bambi cartoon in August 1942 the time of the Dieppe raid which saw the first use in numbers of the Spitfire Mk IX and the Mustang MkI and the B17 in US hands
Last edited:
Shortround6
Major General
Then what was the average speed of a Defiant II? Worse than the 313mph listed for them?
Shortround6
Major General
Hurricane IIs vs 109Fs?
True but then there were very few Fw 190s in 1941/early 1942. and then we are back to the Hurricane II vs 109F and Hurricane IIs trying to fight Fw 190s until the Typhoons show up.
Not a pretty picture.
This is way off. The machinery/jigs/fixtures needed to equip the factory are not sitting in crates waiting to be shipped, they need to be built.
A few US examples.
Brewster (who was used to working in metal) got named associate contractor for the F4U on Nov 1st 1941, Goodyear was named 2nd associate in Dec 1941.
Goodyear completes first FG-1 in March of 1941, two in April and 7 in May. Brewster takes until April 1943 to complete their first F3A-1, it and another are accepted by the Navy in June, 3 are accepted in July but none are accepted in August.
For the P-47 in Jan 1942 1045 "D"s are ordered from the planned Evansville Indiana plant and 354 "G"s are ordered from Curtiss at the Buffalo NY plant. By Dec 31s 1942 Evansville has built 10 aircraft and Curtiss has built six. Curtiss had built over 3800 P-40s in 1942. Curtiss was certainly used to working with metal aircraft even if their hearts weren't into building Republic aircraft.
Wikipedia quotes the Defiant thusly:
- Maximum speed: 304 mph (489 km/h, 264 kn) at 17,000 ft (5,200 m).
Minus the drag and weight of the turret and with a properly optimised bubble canopy I'm sure there is 10-20 mph available but there is no getting past the impact of the accommodations for the turret.
I am not suggesting that the Defiant sans turret could be modified into a competitive single seat fighter. I'm saying that applying the same level of technology, engine and know how would have allowed Bolton and Paul to design a clean sheet fighter (with no Defiant legacy) that was better than Hurricane and about as good as Spitfire.
