Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Okay, we won't argue with you, BP called the P.94 a Defiant with out a turret but you obviously know more about their plane than they do.
Thick wings, are a relative concept, the P-51 had wings thick enough to hold a lot of fuel in the roots and 0.5" guns side by side in the middle, the issue isn't the thickness but where they are thick.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.
Thick wings, are a relative concept,
Thick wings, are a relative concept, the P-51 had wings thick enough to hold a lot of fuel in the roots and 0.5" guns side by side in the middle, the issue isn't the thickness but where they are thick.
The Tiffy & Tempest had a thick wing.
the Hurricane was more manoeuvrable than the Spitfire and the Bf 109
Because it was slower, all the Hurri could do was turn, you don't win a fight by just turning, the Spit and 109 made everything else in the world in 1940 obsolete, it's that simple.
The Hurricane? None of those things, yet, despite its so-called 'inferiority', the Hurricane was more manoeuvrable than the Spitfire and the Bf 109 and in low-speed manoeuvres had few equals in 1940 in monoplanes, despite its relative size
Yup, and the P-51 owes its history to putting the thick bit in the right place, this where I conclude my very limited expertise on turbulent and plastic aerodynamic flow on aerofoils.Well where BP Hawker put the thick bit was in the wrong place, you know what I was saying haha
Again with the unjustified sweeping statements. That's simply not true. It's not just about what you've got, but how you use it. Put a seasoned RAF ace in a Hurricane I and a complete tyro in an Fw 190D and watch what happens.
Yup, and the P-51 owes its history to putting the thick bit in the right place, this where I conclude my very limited expertise on turbulent and plastic aerodynamic flow on aerofoils.
the ace in the Hurri couldn't catch the Dora under any situation short off parking it on the runway
Not sweeping statements fact,
A laminar type aerofoil isn't necessarily thinner, it just has the thickest part further back in the wing chord. The Tempest also has the chin radiator set up changed.The Tempest was the Tiffy with a thin wing.
Regardless of engine, Mustang MkIs had no problem operating over Europe from first introduction to the end of the war, the only question was the altitude they worked at.And being fitted with the right engine.
Same with the A6M, it could out turn everything at slow speed, but how it did fair when bigger faster armored fighters came online that could dictate the fight?
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?
View attachment 617538
egardless of engine, Mustang MkIs had no problem operating over Europe from first introduction to the end of the war, the only question was the altitude they worked at.
Therefore, the BP P.94 would be the closest thing Britain had on hand to fill the gap.