Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The Defiant was planned to fire forward, the pilotsu control column had a firing button. The guns had to be fired above, I believe, 15 degrees above the center of the aircraft to avoid destroying the propeller as they weren't synchronized. Why it wasn't incorporated I can't remember
They tested a turretless Defiant and it was no better in performance than the Hurricane, so it wasn't developed past the testing stage.One solution would have been easy ... fixed forward armament. Put two wing MG and reduce to two rear cannons of larger bore. However, a better solution would have been to stop making it or change it into a single seat fighter. It would have resembled a metal Hurricane, but likely would have been faster (what wasn't?).
One solution would have been easy ... fixed forward armament. Put two wing MG and reduce to two rear cannons of larger bore. However, a better solution would have been to stop making it or change it into a single seat fighter. It would have resembled a metal Hurricane, but likely would have been faster (what wasn't?).
As for the F2A, the US Navy cancelled their contract in 1941, shifting over to the F4F, but the British liked it and ordered another 170 of them
The Brits were hard up for any a/c and went for any a/c they could get their hands on.
At the time of the Defiant's design, fighters didn't escort bomber as they didn't have the range. With the fall of France that changed and the Defiant had to be used in a way it wasn't designed for.
Well, they didn't want P-39s. Or P-38s as I recall...
Because they weren't up to doing the job in Europe!
As for the bombers, stop reading specs for bombless bombers. Besides to keep formation bombers travel at a lower than max speed and range decreased with speed.
The Germans did quite well with upward and forward weapons.
Both the IJA and IJN had successful interceptors set up with Schrage Musik, too.And the Defiant's turret could be locked forward.
The German NFs had to be under the e/a to hit their target while the Defiant could stand off to the side.
Those who had a distinct "obsession with profits" and no background or apparent interest in aviation replaced those who had matured with the corporation and the aviation industry.
Neither P-38 or 39 performed as advertised, they were not ready for service. The F4F although initially not with folding wings did have reasonable performance. With the fall of France the design use of the Defiant disappeared and in any case a nightfighter was needed, the Defiant wasn't a particularly good night fighter, just better than anything else at the time. The concept of overweight slow turret fighter wasn't abandoned, the P-61 took it to another level.Well, they didn't want P-39s. Or P-38s as I recall...
Even for it's intended job, I don't think the Defiant would have cut the mustard, as a lot of Axis bombers were too fast and / or high flying.
As for the 'bombers always get through' etc.... the divergence between what planners and designers thought the war environment would be like and what it actually was is what 'phase 3' was about. The best designs often proved to be the most adaptable. A fighter with a turret that can't shoot forward is very specialized.
Neither P-38 or 39 performed as advertised, they were not ready for service. The F4F although initially not with folding wings did have reasonable performance.
With the fall of France the design use of the Defiant disappeared and in any case a nightfighter was needed, the Defiant wasn't a particularly good night fighter, just better than anything else at the time. The concept of overweight slow turret fighter wasn't abandoned, the P-61 took it to another level.
We were talking about what planes the British would take and what they wouldn't. Limited success and dismal failure are questions of semantics.Yeah but... we were talking about the (essentially failed) F2A not the (successful) F4F. And the F2A actually had most of the same problems that the P-38 and P-39 did.
I don't think it's realistic or even plausible to put the P-61 in the same category as the Defiant. P-61 was faster than almost all enemy bombers (other than jets), had far greater range, had on-board radar, and had it's own forward firing guns. It was more of a 'limited success' as distinct from the 'dismal failure' of the Defiant.