Single Seat Defiant (1 Viewer)

[Admiral Beez]

Gawd those are ugly! The P.94 might have made a half decent carrier fighter; it would certainly have been an advance over what the FAA had in service in 1940.

When left to their own devices, the interwar and WW2-era FAA rarely made any attractive aircraft. Flycatcher, Fulmar, Barracuda, Shadower, Skua, Roc, Firebrand, etc. were ugly compared to their RAF counterparts. The best looking FAA aircraft were RAF types, like the Nimrod and Sea Fury.

 

[CORSNING]

From Flying to the Limit by Peter Caygill:

Page 33,
"The resultant P.82 Defiant, designed to meet specification F.9/35 was flown
for the first time by Cecil Feather on 11 August 1937 at Wolverhampton
Airport."

"In its construction, the Defiant was more advanced than the Hurricane,..."
"..., it was much simpler to produce than the Spitfire."

"The prototype Defiant (K8310) was delivered to A&AEE at Martlesham
Heath in early December 1937 for an initial assessment. The turret had
not yet been fitted so a metal fairing took its place. Powered by a Rolls-
Royce Merlin I, performance testing showed a top speed of 320 mph. and
the aircraft attained a height of 10,500 ft. in 7.5 minutes (using +6.25 lb.
boost)."

K8310 was fitted with a turret and reached 303 mph./16,600 ft./+6.25 lb.
and climbed to 20,000 ft./15.1 minutes. Using 100 octane fuel and +12 lb.
boost the Defiant I with a Merlin III could reach 312 mph./10,000 ft.

 

[Kevin J]

When left to their own devices, the interwar and WW2-era FAA rarely made any attractive aircraft. Flycatcher, Fulmar, Barracuda, Shadower, Skua, Roc, Firebrand, etc. were ugly compared to their RAF counterparts. The best looking FAA aircraft were RAF types, like the Nimrod and Sea Fury.

The Fulmar is pretty sleek. Put a two stage Merlin in and you'd have a fast high altitude recce bomber.

 

[Kevin J]

From Flying to the Limit by Peter Caygill:

Page 33,
"The resultant P.82 Defiant, designed to meet specification F.9/35 was flown
for the first time by Cecil Feather on 11 August 1937 at Wolverhampton
Airport."

"In its construction, the Defiant was more advanced than the Hurricane,..."
"..., it was much simpler to produce than the Spitfire."

"The prototype Defiant (K8310) was delivered to A&AEE at Martlesham
Heath in early December 1937 for an initial assessment. The turret had
not yet been fitted so a metal fairing took its place. Powered by a Rolls-
Royce Merlin I, performance testing showed a top speed of 320 mph. and
the aircraft attained a height of 10,500 ft. in 7.5 minutes (using +6.25 lb.
boost)."

K8310 was fitted with a turret and reached 303 mph./16,600 ft./+6.25 lb.
and climbed to 20,000 ft./15.1 minutes. Using 100 octane fuel and +12 lb.
boost the Defiant I with a Merlin III could reach 312 mph./10,000 ft.

Take out the guns and a Tac-R Hurricane did 350 mph. I think that beats the unarmed Defiant I by 30 mph.

 

[Shortround6]

Main problem for many land fighters in trying to transition to a carrier fighter is the stalling speed, which translates to take-off run and landing speed.
The Hurricane and Spitfire made the transition because they both had a low wing loading/low stall speed (and gentile stall) they may not have been ideal but they were workable.

For the US the Hawk series (P-36/P-40), by the time you get to the Tomahawk anyway, is too heavy and needs too much deck.
The P-40 no letter with just the .50 cal guns in the cowl needed 721ft of ground run at zero wind at weight of just 6655lbs.
The P-40E needed 1050ft of ground run at 0Kts wind at weight of just 7500lbs. (how much fuel/ammo?)
The P-40E needed 665ft of ground run at 17Kts wind at weight of just 7500lbs.
The P-40E needed 400ft of ground run at 35Kts wind at weight of just 8100lbs. (clean/no drop tank).

An F4F-4 needed 710ft of ground run at 0Kts wind at weight of 7973lbs. (full internal fuel and ammo)


British carriers, even the fast ones, had smaller decks than the American carriers (the big ones) which really complicates things.
An empty Defiant is only a few hundred pounds lighter than a loaded MK I Hurricane. even yanking out 600lbs worth of turret and 200lbs worth of gunner still leaves you with a rather heavy airplane.
And coming in just 10% faster means a 21% increase in load on the arrester system even if you make a good trap.

Schemes for alternative FAA fighters need to take this into account. Also take into account that the Eagle and Hermes were 24-25kt ships.

 

[Admiral Beez]

The Fulmar is pretty sleek. Put a two stage Merlin in and you'd have a fast high altitude recce bomber.

I'd love to have seen a sleek single seat Fulmar. Sort of like this photoshopped single seat Firefly.

Postwar the FAA fielded some beauties, including the Sea Hawk and Sea Vixen. The Fulmar I saw at the FAA Museum at Yeovilton was very impressive, a real marvel and joy for my inner teenaged warbird fan to behold.

 

[CORSNING]

Take out the guns and a Tac-R Hurricane did 350 mph. I think that beats the unarmed Defiant I by 30 mph.

Shores, Cull and Izawa 1993, Page 403:
Hurricane Tac R:
" An additional radio was fitted for liaison with ground forces who were better placed to direct the Hurricane. Some
Hrricane Tac R aircraft also had a vertical camera fitted in the rear fuselage, so to compensate for the extra weight
either one or two Brownings or two cannons would be omitted."
Probably just a very slight increase in speed, if any.

The Photo Reconnaissance Hurricane PR Mk.II was fitted with the Merlin XX. It was said to be capable of slightly
over 350 mph. and was able to reach 38,000 ft. Keep in mind this was with an engine capable of 1,185 hp./+12 lb.
boost, 1,280 hp./+14 lb. boost and 1,490 hp./+16 lb. boost.
It is hardly fair to compare the Hurricane PR Mk.II's speed in October 1941 to the 890 hp. Merlin I powered single
seat Defiant which could reach 320 mph at the end of 1937.

 

[Kevin J]

Shores, Cull and Izawa 1993, Page 403:
Hurricane Tac R:
" An additional radio was fitted for liaison with ground forces who were better placed to direct the Hurricane. Some
Hrricane Tac R aircraft also had a vertical camera fitted in the rear fuselage, so to compensate for the extra weight
either one or two Brownings or two cannons would be omitted."
Probably just a very slight increase in speed, if any.

The Photo Reconnaissance Hurricane PR Mk.II was fitted with the Merlin XX. It was said to be capable of slightly
over 350 mph. and was able to reach 38,000 ft. Keep in mind this was with an engine capable of 1,185 hp./+12 lb.
boost, 1,280 hp./+14 lb. boost and 1,490 hp./+16 lb. boost.
It is hardly fair to compare the Hurricane PR Mk.II's speed in October 1941 to the 890 hp. Merlin I powered single
seat Defiant which could reach 320 mph at the end of 1937.

I'm thinking of Hurricane I, no guns, just cameras, 16 lbs boost. Should be good for 350 mph at 7500 feet, maybe 340 mph at 18000 feet.

 

[fastmongrel]

I'm thinking of Hurricane I, no guns, just cameras, 16 lbs boost. Should be good for 350 mph at 7500 feet, maybe 340 mph at 18000 feet.

I dont think the Merlin III was cleared for +16lbs of boost though that doesnt mean somebody didnt have a go at it, but there comes a point where raising boost becomes counter productive and the side entry Supercharger on the Merlin III was about on the limit at +12lbs. Anymore boost and it starts to take more power to run the supercharger than the extra power you get out. Anything more than +12lbs needed Stanley Hookers magic slide rule.

iirc The first Merlin cleared to run at +16lbs was the Merlin 45 in the Spitfire MkV.

 

[CORSNING]

I'm thinking of Hurricane I, no guns, just cameras, 16 lbs boost. Should be good for 350 mph at 7500 feet, maybe 340 mph at 18000 feet.

Note: The single-seat Defiant's 320 mph. was at +6.25 lb. boost/Merlin I = 890 hp. The early Hurricane Mk.I Merlin IIs were producing 1,030 hp./+6 lb.
(pre-Battle of Britain). Battle of Britain Hurricane Is were using Merlin IIs & IIIs using 100 octane and +12 lb. boost producing 1,310 hp. I believe the
single seat Defiant would have no less than equaled the speed of the Hurricane I & IIs with the same engine and boosting. The heavier Defiant probably
would not equal the Hurricanes climb rate thought.

 

[CORSNING]

The Merlin III was cleared for +16 lb. boosting (1,440 hp./5,500 ft.)with 100 octane after the
beginning of 1940 in Sea Hurricanes, but I am not home so I can't look up the exact date at
this time.

 

[fastmongrel]

The Merlin III was cleared for +16 lb. boosting (1,440 hp./5,500 ft.)with 100 octane after the
beginning of 1940 in Sea Hurricanes, but I am not home so I can't look up the exact date at
this time.

Some Merlin IIIs for the Sea Hurricane were cleared for +16lbs but they were tweaked low level specials with a full throttle height of 5,500 feet

 

[Kevin J]

I dont think the Merlin III was cleared for +16lbs of boost though that doesnt mean somebody didnt have a go at it, but there comes a point where raising boost becomes counter productive and the side entry Supercharger on the Merlin III was about on the limit at +12lbs. Anymore boost and it starts to take more power to run the supercharger than the extra power you get out. Anything more than +12lbs needed Stanley Hookers magic slide rule.

iirc The first Merlin cleared to run at +16lbs was the Merlin 45 in the Spitfire MkV.

No, it was on the Sea Hurricane Ib being used on the 1942 Malta convoys, definitely Pedestal, IIRC earlier.

 

[CORSNING]

For what it is worth:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...lin_variants&usg=AOvVaw1FV0GkqiM2yJ8ADCnR2g2_

 

[Shortround6]

You could plot the Merlin III boost ratings on a chart and they would pretty much follow a straight line. let's remember that 16lb of boost is pretty close to 62in of MAP.

The Merlin III might have been able to generate over 70in at sea level
Question is wither the engine would run for more than a minute or two.

The higher you go the less absolute pressure the supercharger can make.

Some of the Melrin XX engines were rated at 14lbs in low gear and 16lbs in high gear but I can't recall the dates at the moment. At some point they may have been allowed to use 16lbs in low gear?
However I don't think that the 16lb rating for any Merlin was used in 1940. The CAM ships didn't go into action until the summer (or very late spring) of 1941.

 

[Kevin J]

You could plot the Merlin III boost ratings on a chart and they would pretty much follow a straight line. let's remember that 16lb of boost is pretty close to 62in of MAP.

The Merlin III might have been able to generate over 70in at sea level
Question is wither the engine would run for more than a minute or two.

The higher you go the less absolute pressure the supercharger can make.

Some of the Melrin XX engines were rated at 14lbs in low gear and 16lbs in high gear but I can't recall the dates at the moment. At some point they may have been allowed to use 16lbs in low gear?
However I don't think that the 16lb rating for any Merlin was used in 1940. The CAM ships didn't go into action until the summer (or very late spring) of 1941.

IIRC 16 lbs boost was tested in 1941 and introduced in 1942.

 

[PFVA63]

Main problem for many land fighters in trying to transition to a carrier fighter is the stalling speed, which translates to take-off run and landing speed.
The Hurricane and Spitfire made the transition because they both had a low wing loading/low stall speed (and gentile stall) they may not have been ideal but they were workable.
....

Hi,
I don't know if this helps any, but here is an old plot that I put together a long time ago. The Blue Squares (and curve) are USN fighter type aircraft taken from the book "America's 100,000" by Francis Dean, and the Green Triangles (and curve) are for USAAF fighter types, taken from the same book.

Although not labeled in the curve, the furthest left Green Triangle is the P39 @ 7793lb, the next is the P40F @ 8678lb, and then the P63A @ 8989lb, the P51B @ 10176lb, and the P47 @ 14411lb. My original intent in plotting the data was to try and ID differences between naval and land-based designs of the WWII era.

Since I made the plot I eventually added several additional aircraft including the Spitfire MkVb , the Seafire L MkIII, and the Hurricane IIC (as shown as Purple Diamonds) which all appear to fall almost right on the Blue Curve based on notional Wing Loading for USN type fighters (at full load).

As such, you can kind of see a fair bit of difference in wing loading for the USN type fighters and the USAAF fighters, with the three RAF & RN fighters noted above appearing to fall in line with the USN data. Interestingly though are two additional points for the RN's Fulmar MkII and Firefly MkI (also shown as Purple Diamonds. Here the wing loading of the Fulmar appears below the curve shown for USN type fighters. The lighter relative wing loading for the Fulmar may well be in part due to the desire to accommodate operations off some of the smaller and slower RN carriers that you mentioned (but I am just guessing).

Anyway, I don't know if any of this helps, but I thought that I'd pass it along, since I had the plot.

Pat

 

[pbehn]

Anyway, I don't know if any of this helps, but I thought that I'd pass it along, since I had the plot.

Pat

Interesting stuff, as I understood it wing loading is a value, whether that is good or bad depends on what you want to do, if you want to climb or turn you want low loading, if you want to go fast you want it high
.

 

[Nick Sumner]

Forgive me, I can't resist. From the world of Drake's Drum.

'A Cutlass IIIB of 849 Squadron RN, in flight over Singapore 1945. Though obsolescent, Cutlass fighters saw action in the early part of the campaign in South East Asia but were phased out by mid 1946.'

 

[Kevin J]

View attachment 559900

Forgive me, I can't resist. From the world of Drake's Drum.

'A Cutlass IIIB of 849 Squadron RN, in flight over Singapore 1945. Though obsolescent, Cutlass fighters saw action in the early part of the campaign in South East Asia but were phased out by mid 1946.'

Fake news, mate.