Turreted Fighters

[dy031101]

Hee hee hee......

I think the ventral position would be better, similar to the experimental mounting used on the OV-10.

I think I have a new 3D Studio Max project idea coming soon......  

Two ways to do it:

1. an A-10A-based one with a seperate streamlined dorsal dome for the gunner seated behind the Avenger ammo drum and an equally-streamlined dorsal M197 turret further aft, engine pods relocated to fuselage lateral positions;

2. an A-10[N/AW]-based machine with a 30mm chain gun on the extreme tail end or (as you suggested) a ventral position.  Where would you have put the turret though?  I'm thinking somewhere under the rear fuselage......

Was at least the turret and gunner dome assemblies of the Supermarine 305 ever made mockup of?

[Mossie]

My thoughts were pretty much under where the ammo drum is situated, just behind the pilot.  If you're going with a smaller system, there would be plenty of room for the mounting.  It's reasonably close to the CoG to reduce pitch up problems & leaves the pylons free.

The rear position immediately behind the wing might be okay too, although you might need to make the fuselage wider & deeper to take a gun.  Would be better if you were designing the A-10 from scratch.

The extreme nose would be good if you could design avionics that could deal with the pitch up.

[pyro-manic]

What about a night fighter based on the Grumman F7F Tigercat, with nose radar and a P-61 style remote turret? The fuselage would need to be widened to accomodate the turret, but it would look interesting.

And what about a high-powered solid-state laser turret, mounted on the fin-tip of a near-future fighter? It could be used as both an offensive and defensive weapon, against other aircraft, ground targets and incoming missiles.

[jcf]

The A-10 solution is obvious. Right Tophe? 

Jon

[jcf]

Gloster N.9/39

[The Rat]

I've got an Airfix Harvard in the stash which is waiting to get a turret, not sure whether it will be a fighter or a trainer.

[Mossie]

Further to Claves Griffon engined 'Super Defiant', I thought I'd mention the real project, which was pretty close.

The Boulton Paul P.96 was bascially a larger & more powerful version of the Defiant with cannon in the wings, to make up for the slow speed & lack of firepower.  Dimensions were 38ft long with a 44ft wingspan (46ft for the P.96C) compared to 35ft 4in long & 39ft 4in wingspan for the Defiant.

There were several variants:
P.96A, six cannon & no turret (a radar operator sat in the rear) powered by a Napier Sabre
P.96B, two cannon with standard Defiant turret, Sabre engine
P.96C, four cannon in a larger wing with turret, Sabre engine
P.96D, B & C varaints with Bristol Centaurus

There's a more detailed description in BSP Fighters & Bombers, a model of the P.96B seems to show an engine that is closer to the Griffon than the Sabre, although this was probably just an early version of the Napier engine.

[Mossie]

And covering a question of Dy's in the same thread;

After being mesmerized by the Super Defiant for days, I began thinking...... that perhaps the turret should be the one receiving cannon armament, and that the wings should have machineguns just heavy enough for fighter-type targets to save weight?

Just my opinion.

Cannon turrets tended to be much heavier, this meant a beefed up structure to take it.  All the designs I've seen (admittedly all in BSP Fighters & Bombers!) are twin engined.  Have a look on page 6 at Gregs pic of the Boulton Paul P.92.  It has a large 'hump' around the turret which I'm pretty sure was an attempt by BP to spread the weight over the structure.  You can see a similar turret design for cannon armed bombers of the period.  A scaled down proof of concept was built as the P.92/2  but a decision was made to consolodate aircraft project around the Battle of Britain & the requirement was cancelled.  The P.92/2 was continued with & flew, I'm not sure what conclusions were made, but it didn't lead any further.

[GTX]

Further to Claves Griffon engined 'Super Defiant', I thought I'd mention the real project, which was pretty close.

The Boulton Paul P.96 was bascially a larger & more powerful version of the Defiant with cannon in the wings, to make up for the slow speed & lack of firepower.  Dimensions were 38ft long with a 44ft wingspan (46ft for the P.96C) compared to 35ft 4in long & 39ft 4in wingspan for the Defiant.

There were several variants:
P.96A, six cannon & no turret (a radar operator sat in the rear) powered by a Napier Sabre
P.96B, two cannon with standard Defiant turret, Sabre engine
P.96C, four cannon in a larger wing with turret, Sabre engine
P.96D, B & C varaints with Bristol Centaurus

There's a more detailed description in BSP Fighters & Bombers, a model of the P.96B seems to show an engine that is closer to the Griffon than the Sabre, although this was probably just an early version of the Napier engine.

Some images of these are back on Pg 2 of this thread.

Regards,

Greg

[dy031101]

The P.97 would have looked like the British counterpart to the P-61 (and, by my definition, be cool  ).


As for the P.96, I think I like the B layout better (the turret being the main armament and the wing guns being anti-fighter backup).

[Mossie]

Some images of these are back on Pg 2 of this thread.

Regards,

Greg

Thanks Greg, spotted the P.92, but missed the P.96 & P.97!

[sideshowbob9]

Gloster N.9/39

Been thinking a He-170 (an option in the matchbox He-70 kits) might make a good basis for modelling that.

[kitnut617]

Not a turreted fighter as such, and have no idea why it was even tested. It has a 40mm cannon installed.

[GTX]

My understanding was that it was trialled as a defensive weapon.

Regards,

Greg

[rickshaw]

My understanding was that it was trialled as a defensive weapon.

Regards,

Greg

Basically yes.  However it was more like a solution looking for a problem.  The 40mm COW gun was an excellent weapon but the RAF never really found a role for it.  They trialled it as a bomber destroyer, as a bomber defensive weapon and as a ground attack weapon but it just didn't really seem to suit what they wanted out of it.  IIRC all of them ended their days as airfield defensive weapons mounted on lorries.