Stuff That Never Made It - but why?

[monkeyhanger]

Just going on from my comments about the Blackburn Roc in the "Delivery Markings" thread there are some great looking aircraft that are deemed to have failed. The first that springs to mind is the Boulton Paul Defiant. I have always liked that aircraft since I built the airfix kit in the 1960s and saw the sole survivor at the RAF Museum. It failed as a day fighter but went on to be a successful night fighter/target tug/ECM aircraft and general test platform. But what about a more offensive role. Could it carry underwing bombs for ground attack? One of my first whifs (in about 1975) was a single seat Defiant armed with four 20mm wing guns. Other stuff I like that has negative press:

Blackburn Skua/Roc
Fairey Battle
Bristol Blenheim
Supermarine Swift/Attacker

I don't want to get into an argument of opinions about what is good and what isn't but do you have any suggestions to make these aircraft a success like the Swordfish? In that case, slow, outdated, ugly but a great success.

Robert

[Weaver]

If the Let it Snow GB wins the poll, one thing I might do is resurrect one of the first ideas I had on here, which is a Finnish Defiant "Sturmovik" converted from a day fighter when it proved poor in that role. It'll have bombs, forward firing guns, a much lighter turret (from an Anson) and skis from  Fokker D.XXI.

[Barry Krell]

I wish people would stop knocking the Defiant.  It was always intended as a bomber destroyer, as part of a layered defensive sytem.  The Hurricanes and Spitfires would take out the escorts with the Defiants taking on the bombers.  It was only because it was thrown inti the melee above Dunkirk against 109s that proved it's undoing.  And even then, with the correct tactics, it could hold it's own against the 109.

It's a myth that it was a failure.  The kill stats prove that.  Read Alec Brew's The Turret Fighters and learn.

[The Rat]

Right now I'm making an RAAF Defiant tankbuster, and a Royal Navy Swift. The Swift was a damned fine plane at low level, and would have made a good show of itself if Supermarine had realised its limitations and strengths earlier.

[monkeyhanger]

Listen lads, I'm not knocking any of the aircraft. The point of this thread is to gibve them a chance. Keep going on the positive theme.............

[Spey_Phantom]

another aircraft that would fit the bunch good is the Avro Manchester, the 2 engined bomber witch was quite good, but had more bad points then good. it had a limited range, landing gear failures, and more aircraft were lost on take-off and accidents then in combat. it was only when they converted it into a 4-engined bomber (witch became the Lancaster) that they turned a failure into a victory.

the older Manchesters could have there old engines replaced with Merlin 30's, and they could have used the manchesters as transport, glider tug or even a maretime patrol bomber 

[monkeyhanger]

Just thought, He 177....

Discuss

[apophenia]

the older Manchesters could have there old engines replaced with Merlin 30's, and they could have used the manchesters as transport, glider tug or even a maretime patrol bomber 

There were plans for production radial-engined Manchesters. So, you could believably re-engine with radials too.

The Centaurus would work for an all-Brit solution. But, if the 'used' Manchester airframes are being shunted off into lower value roles, why not use R-2600 Twin Cyclones in Mitchell cowlings (for RAF commonality)?

[Weaver]

Just thought, He 177....

Discuss

Could have been a perfectly good aircraft if they'd either:

a) redesigned the gearbox so the two engines could drive independent contraprops,

or

b) let Heinkel do what they wanted and build a conventional four-engined version, in an exercise almost exactly analagous to the Manchester-Lancaster evolution.

[Mossie]

There was a development of the Defiant without a turret, the P.94.  It would have matched the performance of other fighters of the day & there were plans to fit it with twelve .303's, so it would have been capable of throwing a lot of lead.  Four cannon could have replaced the machine guns.  Had the Spit or Hurricane failed then this version of the Defiant might have very effective.

[Barry Krell]

The photo is the Defiant prototype mocked up as a single seater.  Bouulton Paul wanted to do it but there were more than enough Hurricanes and Spitfires when they'd done the conversion work - we really needed pilots.  Besides which, there were many people in the Air Ministry and the Air Staff who were too wedded to the turret fighter concept.  And this was after the disasters at Dunkirk with the 109s...

The He 177 was fine in the hands of experienced air crew, it was the sprogs who tended to mishandle the throttles and cause the over heating.  The real problem with the He 177 lay with typical German over-engineering.  Even if the aircraft had been an unqualified success, the Lufwaffe wouldn't have been able to mount a proper bombing campaign as we did as they didn't have enough trained pilots (and their training was getting worse as the war progressed), they didn't have the nav aids that we did and finally, they simply didn't have the fuel.  And that was BEFORE we started targetting the fuel production centres in '44.

The Manchester was marginal on the power of two Vultures.  With two Merlins it would have been dangerously underpowered.

[elmayerle]

I wonder how the Manchester would have faired with a pair of W3420s?  I rather suspect there'd have been "fun" adapting them to the airframe.

[Daryl J.]

Was there a worthy British radial that could have been grafted onto the nose and properly faired in for the Defiant single seater?   I'm thinking not just ground attack against Stugs, Panthers, and trains, but including it in the likes of USAF-Vietnam.   


Daryl J.

[The Rat]

The real problem with the He 177 lay with typical German over-engineering.

I've been saying the same thing about their engineering for decades. My wife's uncle, who is both German and an engineer, agrees with me. 

[P1127]

Fit the Battle with a more powerful Merlin, remove all the stuff for a second crewman and fit 40mm cannons/ wing bomb racks to make an interim tank buster & GA aircraft for North Africa

You could probably do the same with the Defiant - maybe fit a Typhoon type canopy