Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
What kind of metrics ensures us that Defiant was an advanced fighter for 1940?
The technology of the Defiant was excellent.
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.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?
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.
Why not? It is easy to declare that, but not so easy to support. The USA was license building Merlins and supplying huge numbers of all sorts of war materials. If the UK dropped out of the war then there is no market for half of what the USA makes. You cant get many planes on a ship compared to the amount of refined metal and ships were being sunk a high rate until 1943. The vast majority of what the USA produced and sent to UK and USSR was not fighter aircraft.
There is a massive difference between 1938 and 1940 when discussions of Merlins and Mustangs took placeThe 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.
Hmmm, 340mph airplane (Hurricane II) chasing 380mph (minimum) airplane.
Hurricane better have plenty of Hight advantage.
The P-40 could climb quite well. Better than the Hurricane I, at least to 15,000ft.
The P-40, however, did not have armour or self sealing fuel tanks.
Without the turret the Defiant was still ballasted for the weight so the difference would only be the difference in drag.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.
you don't like the rules then don't play the game.
I don't believe for a moment in service Hurricanes could do 340mph.
The British didn't make the rules, Germany did, and without the Spit Britain looses.
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?
There is a massive difference between 1938 and 1940 when discussions of Merlins and Mustangs took place
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.The British didn't make the rules, Germany did, and without the Spit Britain looses.
The British didn't make the rules, Germany did, and without the Spit Britain looses.
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.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.
The average speed across numerous airframes is a more accurate way to test speed, in service Hurricanes didn't average 340mph.
The Spitfire achieved nothing that more Hurricanes couldn't have achieved until 1942
The Typhoon was forced into service early because the Spitfire Mk V couldn't handle the Fw 190.
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.
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.