Boulton Paul Defiant

[sideshowbob9]

I didn't realise the Defiant was that big in comparison to the Hotspur! I like this alternative use of, shall we say secondary types and the profiles are, as usual, top notch!

[PR19_Kit]

Oh yes, that upgraded single-seat Defiant really looks good! 

It would look good as a fighter in its own right too, but I bet it would have been a bitch to land with that loooong nose.

[rickshaw]

Landing visibility with a curving approach a'la Seafire would be the way to overcome the long nose problem I think.  Its visibility on the ground would be no worse than most single-engined aircraft of the day which required a ground crew guiding it, often sitting on one or t'other wing.

[NARSES2]

Cheers 'kit. Yep, she'd have been a handful to land (although no worse than a contemporary like the D.520).

You beat me to it, I was just abot to say that upgraded Defiant was very French looking

[redstar72]

Yep, she'd have been a handful to land (although no worse than a contemporary like the D.520).

And don't forget the MiG-3!

[dy031101]

Hell yeah, if they could work out an engine-mounted arrangement for a machinecannon.  Another way to give it a measure of forward firepower.

[dy031101]

I'm pretty sure that the supercharger arrangement on the Merlin prevented a motor gun. But Jerry didn't know that  

Alright, and neither did I.  

It's cool though. 

[rickshaw]

I'm pretty sure that the supercharger arrangement on the Merlin prevented a motor gun. But Jerry didn't know that 

Combination of gearbox and the supercharger.  It had a high thrust line whereas the DB engines had a low one, so a gun could be fitted between the cylinder banks.

[NARSES2]

Decided I will dig out an old Airfix Defiant and make her into a single seat fighter thanks to this thread 

[PR19_Kit]

With that many guns, the armament they'd require AND two crew, a 21 gun Defiant would have needed some larger wings and a beefier engine just to fly I'd have thought! And any sort of manouvre would have needed serious thought........

[Mossie]

As for the synchronized shell guns. Can anyone think of a Merlin-engined aircraft with synchronized guns? I can't.

Hawker Hotspur had a single gun in the nose IIRC. Kestrel engined Hawker biplanes had cowl mounted guns.

[Mossie]

I'm guessing here, but I would think that as the number of prop blades increased as the war progressed, this would make it more difficult for interruptor gear?  I think there was an experimental version of the Fw-190 with a four blade prop.  Apart from that I don't know of any aircraft with more than three blades & interruptor gear?

[PR19_Kit]

Imagine how complicated it would get with a contra-prop!! You'd have almost no shells leaving the guns at all!

[kitnut617]

Imagine how complicated it would get with a contra-prop!! You'd have almost no shells leaving the guns at all!

I worked out that it wouldn't be much different than if you had a single prop, it's all about the timing, velocity of the shells and the speed of the prop blade at the diameter where the shells pass the blades.  For my Crecy Fighter I have two 30mm firing through two four blade contra-props, where the guns are about 4 feet out from the prop center so I calcutated that the speed of the blade at that point is about 838 feet per second at 2000 rpm (about what props turn at).  The velocity of the shell for a 30mm Aden was/is about 2430 feet per second so there's plenty of time for the shell to pass between the circulating blades especially if the shells are timed to arrive when there's a space between the blades and not timed when the shell is actually fired (which would be 10 or 12 feet behind the props).

[rickshaw]

I've been thinking, "longer wings..." and all that.  How about a high-altitude Defiant for intercepting Ju86Ps over the UK?  Might need a new engine as well as the longer wings but those turret guns would be a killer against the unarmed Ju86Ps.