Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
The Defiant got radar and was also used for electronic countermeasures.
On 24 August, nine Defiants of 264 scrambled from Manston to engage an incoming German force; in the ensuing engagement, three Ju 88s and a single Bf 109E were shot down for the loss of two Defiants. Later that same day, another cluster of bombers appeared and were engaged by seven Defiants that had been in the process of refuelling; three Ju 88s and two Bf 109Es were downed.
On 26 August 264 Squadron engaged a formation of 12 Dornier Do 17 bombers over north-eastern Kent but was attacked by a large formation of Bf 109s.[29] Three aircraft were lost (two to ace Hpt. Gunther Lutzow of JG 3) but six Do 17s and a Bf 109 were shot down.
Not bad for such a dud a/c.
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, which they were still producing through the fall of 1941 - if they had done well in Singapore, Malaya and Burma, the British Purchasing Commisision would probably have ordered more. Seems like the main issue was really some kind of failure with the engine to perform properly at high altitude (overheating and oxygen starvation) which was never addressed, Brewster in fact "repurposing" some old DC 3 engines because they couldn't get enough ought of Wright.
Engine production was often the Achilles heel of new aircraft designs and it was extremely common for an engine which was anticipated in the design stage of the cycle to either not be available or to be flawed / underperforming when it came time to build a prototype or early production run, requiring a last minute switch to another engine (if that was even possible). This was quite often the reason for an aircraft to fail in what I called Stage 2 or 3.
S
The Defiant was the RAF's most successful night fighter during the Blitz of 1940/41, the Hurricane was the most numerous night fighter and the Beaufighter, available only in small numbers, clearly the best. The Defiant II of 1941 was armed with radar and the Defiant I retro fitted with it. As a night fighter, the Defiant, with guns that could be fired upwards, was a success and led to proposals (tests?) with turret armed Beaufighters, so I think it would be fair to say that the Defiant pioneered the concept of the turret armed night fighter.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.
The F2A was an early 30's design that went into production in the mid 30's with a mission profile that was outdated.
And the F2A-3 was heavier because of self-sealing tanks and armor installed (about 500 pounds all told), causing a performance penalty opposed to the F2A-2.
AND, the F2A in Allied hands in the PTO were piloted by inexperienced pilots against veteran IJA/IJN pilots.
The F2A in the hands of the determined Finns, fighting against the Soviets at low to medium altitudes (which was the prime operating conditions for the F2A) shows exactly what the F2A was capable of.
But the Defiant wasn't a fighter, it was an interceptor, designed to intercept unescorted bombers. My idea of dismal failure would be an aircraft that took four years to develop, cost more than the planes it struggled to shoot down and which was requested by Spaatz to be replaced by a piece of wood made in another country.My criteria for "dismal failure" for a fighter incidentally would be it couldn't survive in the combat environment without help, let alone catch and destroy enemy aircraft.
S
The Defiant was the RAF's most successful night fighter during the Blitz of 1940/41, the Hurricane was the most numerous night fighter and the Beaufighter, available only in small numbers, clearly the best. The Defiant II of 1941 was armed with radar and the Defiant I retro fitted with it. As a night fighter, the Defiant, with guns that could be fired upwards, was a success and led to proposals (tests?) with turret armed Beaufighters, so I think it would be fair to say that the Defiant pioneered the concept of the turret armed night fighter.
I really don't believe that Bell tried to decieve the British with the P-400.The British didn't GET P-39s. They got P-400s. It was not what they expected, but WAS what they ordered. Bell made a prototype P-400 that had 30 coats of primer with extensive sanding between them, more rigid gear door linkages, putty-filled junctions with the canopy, and a host of other changes other than the British-specified armament. When it was done, the P-400 prototype made 391 mp at 14,400 feet. The British ordered it. None of these changes were made to production P-400s, and they had a top speed of some 359 mph when tested. Bell should have been severely slapped for not supplying production airplanes that matched the performance of the P-400 prototype. I'd say they engaged in a bit of profiteering.
The British didn't GET P-38s. They got the Model 322B, which was basically a P-38E without turbochargers and with both engines being right-handed for commonality with the P-40 engines. That stepchild was not very good, and wound up as US fighter-trainers after being converted back to left and right-handed engines (still without turbochargers). If they wanted US fighter planes, it baffles me why they didn't just order them instead of ordering them with unproven changes.
Bell was at fault for the P-400s, but the British were at fault for the model 322B P-38s. Methinks things could have been a bit more above-board between allies than was the case in real life. When Lockheed tested the Model 322B, they should have raised the flag to the British. Maybe they did.
That would be a great topic for a thread.In my opinion Bell built exactly what the British specified in the contract. A 7850# plane when contemporary SpitfireV weighed 6600#.
This is interesting and if you have any additional information, please post. I believe the basic structural airframes came down the same production lines as US models (our P-39 Expert could probably confirm that). Of course there was different equipment installed so was it the equipment that didn't work or the "different equipment" was poorly installed? If the factory installed equipment that didn't function as "designed" this is not a quality function.The quality of the P-400s was VERY poor, with MANY things not functioning or poorly installed. That from multiple British sources and from some U.S. pilots who were not flying them but were there when they were delivered and being put to use.
I think Bell tried their best to screw the British, and I seriously doubt it was Larry Bell. It was likely upper management other than Larry Bell, who was not a bad sort when it came to quality in his products.
Joe, we have many visitors at the museum. Not a small percent are British. Of the ones I get into conversations with that are either pilots or aviation enthusiasts, almost 70% mention the early experience with the Bell P-400s and the early P-38s when they talk about US planes at all (not their favorite subject). Almost to a person, they mention the poor quality of the P-400s and the lack of performance in the P-38s.
Most of my books that mention the P-400 at all also mention poor performance and some mention poor quality.
I am firmly in the corner which thinks the P-38 (P-322B) experience was entirely the fault of the British, who requested same-turning, non-turbo engines without a test of the configuration. I have seen first hand the quality of the typical US fighter aircraft, as have you, I know. While it isn't exactly pristine perfect, U.S. planes are not badly built in general, certainly not badly-built enough to generate such venom from the British. That goes for every manufacturer I have seen, from Seversky to Republic, Curtiss, Bell, North American, etc. Pretty decent airplanes. I am left thinking there MUST be something behind the talk, but have never seen a real, live, unrestored P-400 so I can look it over and make a first-hand evaluation. We DO have a P-39 that has a corrosion problem, but the workmanship is typical U.S. as far as I can tell. But it is a P-39, not a P-400.
Lacking a real P-400, the books and people who have spoken with me about it have convinced me that there is some basis for their almost universal insistence on poor quality. It cannot be performance alone. I also recall that this was early in the war, when everyone was ignoring the factory suggestions for proper running of the Allison engine, and engine problems could contribute to the perception of poor quality, even if it were not really true. I cannot say for sure, myself.
So, I'll just say that the P-400 failed miserably to live up to British expectations according to most reference books I have seen and backpedal from there. I believe there is a basis for the quality assertion, but cannot prove same.