No Spitfire? (4 Viewers)

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

A single seat Defiant may very well have been better than a Hurricane.

However what some people are claiming is that it would have been as good or perhaps better than the Spitfire using the same/similar engine.

Where it would have fallen on that spectrum is certainly up for debate.

So is the amount of modification, anywhere from take a Defiant in 1940, remove the turret, plate over the hole and adjust the CG to suit, up to giving B-P a clean sheet of paper and tell them to build a 360mph airplane back in 1936-37 and see what they can come up with by late 1939 or even late 1940 (The P.94 used a Merlin XX engine which didn't go into production until the summer of 1940).

Spitfire V with a Merlin 45 engine (same supercharger as the Merlin XX but slightly different gear ratio) and eight .303 guns was tested at 375mph at 20,800ft.

Most early Spitfire Vs were remanufactured Spitfire Is and IIs. Test airplane was a rebuilt MK I. A Rebuilt MK II did only 364mph even though it was 380lbs lighter. The lighter plane did climb better. The engine in the 364mph airplane was not performing as expected.
 
The Spitfire MkII was slower than the MkI. Its very easy to get hung up on top speed, it is easy to make a machine that's only saving grace is its top speed, the Mk II was optimised for overall performance and despite being slower in tests on speed its increased performance was noted by the LW, even though they were identical in appearance.
 
It should but it was sometimes noted that the extra power of the Merlin XII was "used up" by things like the external bullet proof windscreen, the IFF aerials, the rear view mirror and a few other little details. Of course a MK I Spit with the Merlin III and all of the extra bits and bobs that showed up by the fall of 1940 wasn't meeting the Fall of 1939 performance figures either
 
Also by a change in propeller I think to give better climb and therefore turn performance.
 
Top speed ain't everything.
It is rare for top speed to mean much at all. I only ran with the tallest gearing on two circuits. Silverstone was just a flat out blast, there were only three corners where you slowed down, Brands hatch was a tight circuit but every corner exit was down hill. Usain Bolt was the fastest man in the world over 100m, but if you watched him play football (soccer) which he did for a while he looked like one of the slowest most of the time. He was actually the fastest man over the last 70 meters of the 100 meter course, on a sports field most of the time it matters only who is quickest from 0 to 20 meters.
 
Monaco vs Spa-Franchorchamps
 
Monaco vs Spa-Franchorchamps
In terms of speed, yes. But in terms of what humans perceive as speed it is different. Monaco is slower than Spa, but Monaco had some scarily quick corners where there is no room for a mistake and if you crash you hit something hard immediately. Silverstone felt slow even though I averaged 100MPH on a bike that only did 120MPH, the track is so wide and run off areas so huge that you had no perception of going fast at all. Other circuits where hairpin bends were around drums filled with concrete and "run off areas" were high tension wire fences felt much faster. On Brands Hatch "indy circuit" every major corner where you have to brake you cannot see the apex of the corner but you can (or could at the time) see a steel Armco barrier. I suppose the difference between doing your first solo landing on an airfield surrounded by grass compared to one surrounded by jagged rocks and houses.
 
My statement still stands, with that thick wing and weight you aren't going to get anywhere near 360mph

You could be right, 'cept there are a few you things you're forgetting. firstly, as Greyman pointed out, the P.94 was not merely a Defiant-without-a-turret. As I pointed out earlier, the aircraft would require considerable redesign to move fuel tanks from the wings to the fuselage to make way for wing-mounted guns, as well as a reduction of overall weight and size of the fuselage which simply wasn't needed because the turret wasn't there. Secondly, it was intended as a stop-gap, therefore maximum speed didn't matter so much. Thirdly, maximum speed doesn't matter so much, you're not gonna fly your entire mission profile at maximum speed. Acceleration and low-speed manoeuvrability mattered more during the Battle of Britain. Fourthly, Hurricanes, despite their much lower speeds against the Bf 109 were better dogfighters. Dogfighting used up precious fuel before the Bf 109s had to bug out at low-level because their fuel warning lights came on.
 
Regarding the subject of this thread, there is no Spitfire. If Boulton Paul is gonna build a single-seat fighter, with a thick wing or not, the company IS NOT simply going to build a Defiant-without-a-turret. Yes, the aircraft would have looked like a Defiant and it probably would have incorporated features that made it into the Defiant, but it would not have been a two-seat, turret armed Defiant conversion. From the outset it would have been designed with wing guns, it would have been designed with one occupant, with a fuel tank in the fuselage, without a turret and the structural strengthening required to support that weight and mass. Why is this difficult for people to understand? The Boulton Paul Balliol was a single-engined trainer, it was not a Defiant-without-a-turret.

MAM 30

This is the Boulton Paul P.111, it was a delta-winged research aircraft. It is not a Defiant-without-a-turret. I hope we are getting the point now.
 
Maybe looking at the issue from a different direction could give some ideas, like "with no Spitfire how soon could something like this be brought into service", or with the important parts of it?

Seems like a good way of looking at it. In this example though, time has to pass and a lot has to happen before Hawker gets to that, but although setting a yardstick and aiming for it is feasible, we are looking at what's achievable in the late 1930s.
 
Within the UK, the bore and stroke of the Griffon was known in the mid thirties, it could have been built Low cooling drag by wing mounted leading edge intake cooling was part of the Mosquito and Whirlwind so was not science fiction in late 1930s early 1940-41. Aero profiles were also known, well de Havilland and North American Aviation seemed to know them, Mitchell did too, its a question of how the many ins and outs were interpreted as far as I can see. Always Hawkers had to be dragged kicking and screaming to see what others saw years before.
 
as Greyman pointed out, the P.94 was not merely a Defiant-without-a-turret.

Umm, yes it was as clearly stated the link a few pages back, the prototype Defiant without a turret was even called a Defiant without a turret by Boulton Paul, as for the thick wing when tell me which successful front line fighter made after the 1930's had thick wings?, even Hawker reluctantly ditched the thick wing with the Typhoon to become the Tempest, then much later the Fury, the P.94 was just another has been in the fighter world and like the Hurri would have been relegated to secondary roles or theaters as soon as possible. What do we do without the Spit, the only other option is to give Martin Baker a rocket up his rear and get the MB5 development going earlier, or us Australians with our CAC Kangaroo, unfortunately neither are going to help in 1940.
 

Users who are viewing this thread