Defiant restoration

[ChrisMcD]

Anybody know about this?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/8013485.stm

http://www.kentonline.co.uk/medway_messenger/news/2009/april/24/airport_firm_fixes_fighter.aspx

http://www.yourmedway.co.uk/kent-news/Rare-WWII-fighter-plane-to-land-for-restoration-newsinkent23495.aspx?news=local

I did not realise that they had any left with turrets.

[GregP]

I didn't know about it ...

At least theirs was in the care of a museum and is not completely corroded, so it will be much easier than restoring it as recovered from, say, in a jungle or underwater.

Since the schedule is only two years, I infer that the aircraft is mostly in pretty good shape ... or they have a large team working on it.

I wish them well and look forward to seeing it when finished. Being a true Planes of Fame member, I hope it flies again.

[gruad]

Would n't it have made sense to ditch the turret and convert the Defiant to a conventional fighter at least for the duration of the BoB?

[merlin]

Would n't it have made sense to ditch the turret and convert the Defiant to a conventional fighter at least for the duration of the BoB?

Oh yes Boulton Paul did propose a single-seat variant - which would have been produced using the existing jigs and tools i.e. quite quickly. I sure the Defiant pilots would have prefered it - rather than be a glorified taxi-driver.

[GregP]

I have often wonderd that myself. Seems logical, so there MUST be some reason why it isn't practical ...

[Ricky]

I would guess it was as simpole as not wanting to have 3 fighter types in production and use during one very hectic campaign. 2 would seem plenty.

[merlin]

I have often wonderd that myself. Seems logical, so there MUST be some reason why it isn't practical ...

Two reasons as I see it. Though just because we see it as being logical doesn't mean that would have been the case then!

One: - the P.94 single seat demonstrator didn't fly until August '40, which might have been thought as being too late, though action could have been taken pending the success.

Two: - the embarrassment factor, a successful single-seater 'Defiant' would show that the concept was flawed (apart from the Germans doing that), it would be a case of 'why didn't you do this in the first place'.

Perhaps if Dowding got to hear of it, he might have pressed for it, he wasn't in favour of the turret fighter in the first place - Sholto Douglas was a big fan!

As for have too many 'fighter types', well they already had three with the Defiant, by reducing two-seat production - by say 80%, and using the spare capacity for single-seat; there's no change in the numbers (though probably there will increase - production time less) - but effectiveness is up.

[ChrisMcD]

I would agree with Merlin, but I think there were a number of other factors.

1) The Defiant was designed as a bomber destroyer - as long as the bomber was unescorted it would probably have done a reasonable job. Having Me109's based in France rather upset the calculations!

2) So what was it doing being based down south. Good question, they were moved smartly north once their vulnerability was horribly demonstrated. Why they were not used to defend against attacks across the North Sea in the first place is another good question.

3) They were probably the best night fighter available at the time and it suited the RAF to move them to this role. They were easier to fly, had a wide u/c and two pairs of eyes. I would have thought that they could do their own version of 'shrage music' with a turret, but I have never seen much to confirm that.

4) There was also as sudden need for a target tug with a realistic speed, since the RAF's accuracy was shown to be woeful. Once again the Defiant was ideal.

5) Beaverbrook was rationalising production and pushing to sort out the fiasco of the Spitfire dispersed manufacture programme. AFAIK he only allowed Spitfire and Hurricane production to go ahead.

6) Boulton and Paul were the main suppliers of turrets and with the increased demand for four engined bombers probably concentrated on that.

Boulton and Paul made some interesting aircraft between the wars and the Defiant was a very good attempt at a stupid idea (the WW1 Bristol Fighter had shown that any successful two seater fighter had to have forward facing guns so to deliberately omit them was murderous)

[Romantic Technofreak]

I was always speculating if the Defiant could have been turned into a sufficient ground attacker. Although - adding some forward-firing guns, armour plates and a 500 kg-bomb would have made the machine considerably heavy...:rolleyes:

Regards, RT

[Lightning]

Hi gruad,

Would n't it have made sense to ditch the turret and convert the Defiant to a conventional fighter at least for the duration of the BoB?

Maybe as a single-seater it would have been even less able to defend itself. At least with the turret, it had some defence against a fighter on its tail.

Regards,
Lightning

[ChrisMcD]

I was always speculating if the Defiant could have been turned into a sufficient ground attacker.

Hi RT,

You got me thinking. I would not use a liquid cooled engine on a ground attacker, but the Bristol radials were very tough - as demonstrated by the Skua.

I did some research and found a website with text from an old book I have

http://freespace.virgin.net/john.dell/Memories.htm#Ghost

The bit I am refering to is the "shunned skua" - which really shows how tough they were. Still, I suspect that the RAF really were not into ground attack that early in the war! But if they were the Skua was about as close to a Stuka as they had - and probably about as vulnerable if air superiority was not guaranteed.

Also, coming back to turret fighters, I had not realised that B&P built all the Rocs as well, since Blackburn were flat out making Skuas. B&P were the experts at installing turrets into aircraft, so Blackburn got them to adapt the Skua design and then build them.

[merlin]

Hi gruad,

Maybe as a single-seater it would have been even less able to defend itself. At least with the turret, it had some defence against a fighter on its tail.

Regards,
Lightning

But without a turret, its less likely there would be a fighter on its tail in the first place, i.e. the single-seat version would be not only faster than the two-seater, but faster than the Hurricane. I don't know about know if it could out-turn a '109', but more chance than the two-seater, and of course it is not vulnerable to frontal attacks!

[dracos]

It's too bad the RAF didn't have more of an interest in ground attack aircraft. They had a decent dive bomber in the Skua. Didn't the Roc carry bombs as well?

Hmm, what if you put bomb racks on the Defiant, replaced the turret with a single flexible machine gun, and placed 2-4 guns firing forward. Though there is still the need for a night fighter that the Defiant filled.

Hi RT,

You got me thinking. I would not use a liquid cooled engine on a ground attacker, but the Bristol radials were very tough - as demonstrated by the Skua.

I did some research and found a website with text from an old book I have

http://freespace.virgin.net/john.dell/Memories.htm#Ghost

The bit I am refering to is the "shunned skua" - which really shows how tough they were. Still, I suspect that the RAF really were not into ground attack that early in the war! But if they were the Skua was about as close to a Stuka as they had - and probably about as vulnerable if air superiority was not guaranteed.

Also, coming back to turret fighters, I had not realised that B&P built all the Rocs as well, since Blackburn were flat out making Skuas. B&P were the experts at installing turrets into aircraft, so Blackburn got them to adapt the Skua design and then build them.

[dracos]

Chris,

I just read the last part of that page you linked too. That was one scary night flight. Those aircrew were lucky to be alive.

Hi RT,

You got me thinking. I would not use a liquid cooled engine on a ground attacker, but the Bristol radials were very tough - as demonstrated by the Skua.

I did some research and found a website with text from an old book I have

http://freespace.virgin.net/john.dell/Memories.htm#Ghost

The bit I am refering to is the "shunned skua" - which really shows how tough they were. Still, I suspect that the RAF really were not into ground attack that early in the war! But if they were the Skua was about as close to a Stuka as they had - and probably about as vulnerable if air superiority was not guaranteed.

Also, coming back to turret fighters, I had not realised that B&P built all the Rocs as well, since Blackburn were flat out making Skuas. B&P were the experts at installing turrets into aircraft, so Blackburn got them to adapt the Skua design and then build them.

[ChrisMcD]

It's too bad the RAF didn't have more of an interest in ground attack aircraft. They had a decent dive bomber in the Skua. Didn't the Roc carry bombs as well?


The RAF's attitude is a bit strange. The used the Hurricane as a ground attack aircraft in the western Desert but AFAIK had horrendous losses despite doing their best to armour that Merlin.

The Skua would have been a better choice, particularly if re-engined with a decent engine like the Hercules. It was stressed for dive bombing and had already had a lengthened nose to cope with the switch from the Mercury to the Perseus, so should have been a relatively simple conversion to shorten the nose and fit a lot more power.

[Lightning]

Hi Merlin,

But without a turret, its less likely there would be a fighter on its tail in the first place, i.e. the single-seat version would be not only faster than the two-seater, but faster than the Hurricane. I don't know about know if it could out-turn a '109', but more chance than the two-seater, and of course it is not vulnerable to frontal attacks!

Would it have been faster than the Hurricane? Also, faster does not always mean better. I doubt whether, even without the turret, the Defiant could out-fight the Hurricane. It just wasn't much of a fighter. As to its ability to dogfight a Bf109, the Defiant would have very little chance of successfully doing so.

Regards,
Lightning

[Kutscha]

Why wouldn't the Defiant, sans turret, outfight the Hurricane? They were about the same size and used the same engine.

How much success did the Hurricane have vs the 109E?

Wiki

P.94

The first Defiant prototype had not been initially fitted with a turret, and therefore had an impressive top speed. Consequently, in 1940, Boulton Paul developed a conventional, single-seat, turret-less version of the Defiant called the P.94, armed with 12 .303 in (7.7 mm) Browning machine guns (six per wing). By that time, the RAF had sufficient quantities of Hawker Hurricanes and Supermarine Spitfire and did not require a new single-seat fighter. With a top speed of about 360 mph (579 km/h), the P.94 was almost as fast as a contemporary Spitfire, although less manoeuvrable.

[merlin]

As I understand it the Hurricane is the most maneourvable, followed by the Spitfire and the 109 last.
Although, the Defiant is longer than the others, maneourvability is basically a function of wing area and weight - RAF wing area's in the region of 240 - 250 sq feet, the Me 109 is more like 175.
Hence, whilst not perhaps being as capable in that respect as the Hurri & Spit, I think they could be an opponent for the 109 to treat with respect - especially in contrast to the standard two-seat Defiant.

[GregP]

The very basic calculations are wing area and weight, true.

However, some wing sections (the airfoil selection) were better than others, Also, some fighters had slots, some had slats, and some had spring loaded slats thatg moved on their own (Bf 109).

So, maneuverability was not always dependent on the basic measurements ... sometimes it was a function of instantaneous lift versus weight. In some situations, one could outperform the other.

Naturally, the pilots of the generally less-maneuverable fighters knew EXACTLY whre their advantage was located, and took frequent advantage of it if they could.

Many did to the fatal result to the other.

[Kutscha]

No springs for the 109's slats Greg.

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-12/1114844/slat6.jpg

As can be seen in this photo, if there was springs they would be out.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-649-5382-31A,_Flugzeug_Me_109_auf_Feldflugplatz.jpg

[Lightning]

Why wouldn't the Defiant, sans turret, outfight the Hurricane? They were about the same size and used the same engine.

There are a lot more factors than just size and engine to be considered when comparing aircraft performances. What about static and dynamic stabilities and their effect on maneuverability? what about weight distribution? What about coefficients of lift and drag? What about airfoil selection? What about load-factor limitations? What about the myriad of aerodynamic issues in general?

You can't just say that because two airplanes have the same size and power that they will perform the same.


How much success did the Hurricane have vs the 109E?

Quite a bit, as was demonstrated in the Battle of Britain. The Spitfire got the lion's share of the glory, but the Hurricane did the elephant's share of the fighting.

The Bf109 was the better fighter, but not by enough to make the Hurricane look ineffectual. The Defiant, on the other hand, was a complete failure as a fighter once the Luftwaffe realized it could fire to the rear.



Wiki

P.94

The first Defiant prototype had not been initially fitted with a turret, and therefore had an impressive top speed. Consequently, in 1940, Boulton Paul developed a conventional, single-seat, turret-less version of the Defiant called the P.94, armed with 12 .303 in (7.7 mm) Browning machine guns (six per wing). By that time, the RAF had sufficient quantities of Hawker Hurricanes and Supermarine Spitfire and did not require a new single-seat fighter. With a top speed of about 360 mph (579 km/h), the P.94 was almost as fast as a contemporary Spitfire, although less manoeuvrable.

The differences between prototype performances and those of the production aircraft are legendary. The top speed of the production Defiant was around 310 mph. What was the "impressive top speed" of the prototype?

The P.94 was also not a production airplane. The stated top speed of about 360 mph was only a little higher than the production Hurricane. What would the speed of the production P.94 have been after it was loaded with all that standard RAF equipment?

The last sentence in that Wikipedia quotation says it all: With a top speed of about 360 mph, it was almost as fast as a contemporary Spitfire and was not as maneuverable.

[ChrisMcD]

I do think that you are being a bit unfair.

The Defiant was a specialised bomber destroyer. It was never intended to mix it with fighters.

Dealing with formations of bombers was a highly theoretical problem when the Defiant was designed and judging by it's success as a night fighter it might well have done well against unescorted bombers in daylight as well.

You just have to look at the success of the Me 110 and 410 heavy fighters against the B17 formations - followed by carnage when the Mustangs arrived to see a similar problem/solution/disaster scenario.

[Red Admiral]

Comparisons between the P.94 and Hurricane I are unfair as the P.94 has a Merlin XX engine with a few hundred more horsepower. Performance compared with the similarly engined Hurricane II is quite similar.

[merlin]

Quite a bit, as was demonstrated in the Battle of Britain. The Spitfire got the lion's share of the glory, but the Hurricane did the elephant's share of the fighting.

The Bf109 was the better fighter, but not by enough to make the Hurricane look ineffectual. The Defiant, on the other hand, was a complete failure as a fighter once the Luftwaffe realized it could fire to the rear.

The differences between prototype performances and those of the production aircraft are legendary. The top speed of the production Defiant was around 310 mph. What was the "impressive top speed" of the prototype?

The P.94 was also not a production airplane. The stated top speed of about 360 mph was only a little higher than the production Hurricane. What would the speed of the production P.94 have been after it was loaded with all that standard RAF equipment?

The last sentence in that Wikipedia quotation says it all: With a top speed of about 360 mph, it was almost as fast as a contemporary Spitfire and was not as maneuverable.

The two-seat Defiant was not a total disaster, only where there were single-engined enemy fighters to oppose it! Why, there were stationed done south is a mystery to me especially considering Dowding's opinion of them! Originally the RAF only expected to face unescorted enemy bombers over the UK.
True, the P.94 was flying demonstrator of what could be done, and the advantages accrued as a result - the performance figures were based on the demonstrator flight trials e.g. roc 3,235 ft/min (see T Butler British Secret Projects p.56). It does not say what actual speeds were achieved - who knows maybe much more and 360 equals combat weight!?
But puzzled where you get the 'only a little higher than the production Hurricane'? According to Hough & Richards basic statistics of BoB fighter aircraft gives the Hurricane 1 at 316 mph, Spitfire 1 at 355 mph, and the Defiant at 304 mph. Owen Thetford also agrees with these figures, with the Hurricane II increasing to 339 mph (with the same engine as the P.94).
It would be very surprising if it was as manoeuvrable as a Spitfire, that shouldn't be the issue, rather that it would have been a better use of resources rather than more two-seat Defiants! Though, it would have been better if it had been available as an alternative earlier.

[Lightning]

Hi merlin,

The two-seat Defiant was not a total disaster, only where there were single-engined enemy fighters to oppose it!

But it was, after all, considered a fighter (a "turret" fighter). In the absence of escorting fighters, it was an effective bomber destroyer, but that doesn't require a fighter's performance. As a fighter (i.e. a day fighter), it was a disaster.


True, the P.94 was flying demonstrator of what could be done, and the advantages accrued as a result - the performance figures were based on the demonstrator flight trials e.g. roc 3,235 ft/min (see T Butler British Secret Projects p.56). It does not say what actual speeds were achieved - who knows maybe much more and 360 equals combat weight!?

And maybe less.

But puzzled where you get the 'only a little higher than the production Hurricane'? According to Hough & Richards basic statistics of BoB fighter aircraft gives the Hurricane 1 at 316 mph, Spitfire 1 at 355 mph, and the Defiant at 304 mph. Owen Thetford also agrees with these figures, with the Hurricane II increasing to 339 mph (with the same engine as the P.94).

Few references agree exactly, but I have the Hurricane IIC having a top speed of 342 mph @ 20,000 ft whereas the Defiant II had a top speed of 303 mph @ 12,000 ft.

That stated 360 mph for the P.94 is only 18 mph faster than a production Hurricane IIC. A man can run faster than 18 mph. I would call that "only a little higher."

It would be very surprising if it was as manoeuvrable as a Spitfire, that shouldn't be the issue, rather that it would have been a better use of resources rather than more two-seat Defiants! Though, it would have been better if it had been available as an alternative earlier.

If it (i.e. the P.94) wasn't as maneuverable as the Spitfire, it was even less maneuverable than the Hurricane.

As far as the Defiant/P.94-vs-Hurricane discussion is concerned, I think the real issue is that a better use of resources would have been to do away with the Defiant and its derivatives in order to develop the Hurricane in its various roles--one of which was as a bomber interceptor--a role that it performed wonderfully in the Battle of Britain.

The Spitfire was certainly a better air-air fighter than the Hurricane, and it deserved all the resources that could be made available to develop it to the highest degree, but it could not replace the Hurricane in the ground-attack, fighter bomber, anti shipping, tank-busting, etc., etc. roles. Later in the war, of course, the Hurricane's descendants--the Typhoon and the Tempest--overshadowed their illustrious sire, but that is another story.

Regards,
Lightning

[ChrisMcD]

But it was, after all, considered a fighter (a "turret" fighter). In the absence of escorting fighters, it was an effective bomber destroyer, but that doesn't require a fighter's performance. As a fighter (i.e. a day fighter), it was a disaster.
Regards,
Lightning

Hi Lightning,

I think that is the point. In the mid-30's the powers that be in the RAF expected to need to deal with hordes of unescorted German bombers coming in over the North Sea.

The idea that they would be coming in from Calais protected by Me 109's and Me 110's never occured.

Cunning devils those Germans - imagine invading France just to provide 'short legged' 109's the opportunity to fly over London!:eek:

[merlin]

Hi merlin,
Few references agree exactly, but I have the Hurricane IIC having a top speed of 342 mph @ 20,000 ft whereas the Defiant II had a top speed of 303 mph @ 12,000 ft.

That stated 360 mph for the P.94 is only 18 mph faster than a production Hurricane IIC. A man can run faster than 18 mph. I would call that "only a little higher."

If it (i.e. the P.94) wasn't as maneuverable as the Spitfire, it was even less maneuverable than the Hurricane.

As far as the Defiant/P.94-vs-Hurricane discussion is concerned, I think the real issue is that a better use of resources would have been to do away with the Defiant and its derivatives in order to develop the Hurricane in its various roles--one of which was as a bomber interceptor--a role that it performed wonderfully in the Battle of Britain.

Regards,
Lightning

Hi Lightning

Re: the Hurricane IIc, yes references do differ - Wm Green has the Mk 1 at 324 mph, and the Mk II at 342 mph, whilst Thetford gives it as 316 mph & 339 mph. Moreover the IIc didn't reach the squadrons (No 3 & 257) until April '41. The Mk IIa started reaching squadrons in September & October.
I wasn't aware of a Defiant/P.94 -vs-Hurricane discussion!?
My posts have been centred around the advantages of the P.94 over the two-seat Defiant -which you state is a disaster. That is - increasing the single-seat fighter availability to Fighter Command, when they needed them.
Yes, I agree the concept of the Defiant was flawed, but then the Germans found their concept of a long range escort fighter - Me-110 - was also flawed.

[curmudgeon]

Hi Lightning

Re: the Hurricane IIc, yes references do differ - Wm Green has the Mk 1 at 324 mph, and the Mk II at 342 mph, whilst Thetford gives it as 316 mph & 339 mph. Moreover the IIc didn't reach the squadrons (No 3 & 257) until April '41. The Mk IIa started reaching squadrons in September & October.
I wasn't aware of a Defiant/P.94 -vs-Hurricane discussion!?
My posts have been centred around the advantages of the P.94 over the two-seat Defiant -which you state is a disaster. That is - increasing the single-seat fighter availability to Fighter Command, when they needed them.
Yes, I agree the concept of the Defiant was flawed, but then the Germans found their concept of a long range escort fighter - Me-110 - was also flawed.
Maybe, just maybe, the later Hurricanes should have been dumped for the Miles M20 ... unless the Miles had nasty habits which aren't widely reported ... faster, more manoeuvrable, should have had 12 mg (= 6 cannon?) and with significantly greater range than Hurricanes or Spitfires. A 500 mile radius of action would have allowed them to operate to the Elbe. Not quite as fast as the Bf109, but a nasty 'shoot-em-up' surprise to road traffic in mid Germany at a time Spitfires barely crossed the channel ... and manoeuvrable + 12 guns + lots of ammunition + no need to hurry home would have been uncomfortable for intercepting Bf109s esp given the limited German air control.

[Lightning]

Hi Chris,

Hi Lightning,

I think that is the point. In the mid-30's the powers that be in the RAF expected to need to deal with hordes of unescorted German bombers coming in over the North Sea.

The idea that they would be coming in from Calais protected by Me 109's and Me 110's never occured.

No argument there. The Defiant was therefore never a real fighter (and should never have been referred to as such). The point I was making was that The Defiant was never really a fighter, so it would have been a poor starting point from which to develop a new viable fighter design based mainly on merely removing its turret.

Regards,
Lightning

[Lightning]

Hi merlin,

I wasn't aware of a Defiant/P.94 -vs-Hurricane discussion!?
My posts have been centred around the advantages of the P.94 over the two-seat Defiant -which you state is a disaster. That is - increasing the single-seat fighter availability to Fighter Command, when they needed them.
Yes, I agree the concept of the Defiant was flawed, but then the Germans found their concept of a long range escort fighter - Me-110 - was also flawed.

The idea of doing away with the Defiant's turret in order to produce a single-seat version was first mentioned here by gruad in posting #3. In your posting #4, the P.94 was first mentioned. Then, in posting #17, Kutscha brought the P.94 into the discussion as a turretless version of the Defiant possibly able to outfight the Hurricane. That's how the discussion evolved into the P.94-vs-Hurricane debate as it were. These threads invariably develop a life of their own that is often far afield of the original premise.

Regards,
Lightning

[Trexx]

The Bolton Paul Defiant was simply an idea tried because of the quickening of advancements in aviation at that time. All kinds of things were being tried because of the wide-open-unknowns of the day. B-17s were orginally intended to fight unescorted, Bell created a flying canon platform (Aircobra), Messerschmitt came out with the "Zerstorer" Me-110...
Just about every one of these "trys" were fielded because of the urgent, desparate and alarming events of those days known as World War Two. The creators of these types of weapons sometimes had triumphant breakthroughs and at the very least figured out things such as, "well that didn't work worth a can-of-beans we won't try that again!"

I for one am completely stoked that there will be a Bolton Paul Defiant in restored condition soon.

I always think of the stories I've heard when they were first encountered by Germans intercepting with 109s that mistook them for Hurricanes. Once upon their tails... there was quite a suprise for them!