Boulton Paul Defiant ideas

[NARSES2]

The latter style Bristol ? turrets used on late war bomber projects had room for twin 20 mm's. One of those might fit

[McColm]

A naval variant with a pair of floats- armed reconnaissance.

[pyro-manic]

I'm now thinking the other way round.

What if the Defiant had been a success?
Would other manufacturers have added turrets to Spitfires, Thunderbolts, Ta 152's...
Where would you put a turret on a P39?
Can I fit a Lancaster tail turret onto the front of my long planned FW 189 Tilt Fan?
Hmmmm...

Going on that premise, you'd surely see other countries getting in on it. P-47, FW190, etc. I think a Typhoon turret fighter would look pretty good too...

[The Wooksta!]

I haven't read this whole thread but what I'd like to do with one is a twin .50's turret.......although I think the guns themselves are physically to big for the turret.......

That one is next on the blocks for me, with some prep work already done and the interior fitted.  And the guns - sourced from a Hasegawa Lancaster do fit.

[Army of One]

I haven't read this whole thread but what I'd like to do with one is a twin .50's turret.......although I think the guns themselves are physically to big for the turret.......

That one is next on the blocks for me, with some prep work already done and the interior fitted.  And the guns - sourced from a Hasegawa Lancaster do fit.

I'll look forward to seeing that......how hard would it be to re engine it with a RR Griffon like the Spit mk XII......? would it require airframe changes like a larger area tail......?

[PR19_Kit]

I haven't read this whole thread but what I'd like to do with one is a twin .50's turret.......although I think the guns themselves are physically to big for the turret.......

That one is next on the blocks for me, with some prep work already done and the interior fitted.  And the guns - sourced from a Hasegawa Lancaster do fit.

I'll look forward to seeing that......how hard would it be to re engine it with a RR Griffon like the Spit mk XII......? would it require airframe changes like a larger area tail......?

Almost anything's possible in our world. 

It might be a tad nose heavy so a longer tail might be needed and that extra leverage may be enough to leave the fin area as it is.

[The Wooksta!]

I wouldn't use a Spitfire Griffon and I've argued elsewhere about fitting Spitfire cowls onto other aircraft - the Spitfire cowling and the bulges are distinctive as they were fitting a larger engine into a slimline airframe whereas with other airframe Merlin/Griffon swaps, you've more of a blank cheque so why, for Cliff's sake, fit a Spitfire cowl?  Especially when said aircraft are not Supermarine designs? 

Yes, I know about the Beaufighter/Lancaster/Mosquito one off/Miles M20 (possibly Halifax and Baracuda) all having the same layout, but that's as they came as a power egg configuration, so Dizzy's Reliant makes sense even if I don't agree with it. 

However, the question is still valid and yes, a Griffon Defiant is possible although Boulton Paul designed later developments with a Sabre or Centaurus engine.  For the former, the drawings seem to suggest an installation similar to that of the Typhoon/Tempest whereas the Centaurus version isn't clear.

[Army of One]

Maybe the way I typed it......I meant the Spit reference as the engine used.........

[Mossie]

There was also an earlier development with more powerful engines than the P.96 Lee refers to.  This was the P.88, a beefed up fixed gun version of the Defiant with a Vulture or Hercules.

[Mossie]

A naval variant with a pair of floats- armed reconnaissance.

There was one, the P.85.  P.85A had a Hercules, P.85B a Merlin.  Not quite a naval Defiant, but a substantial redesign.

P.85B three view, with a side view of the P.85A


P.85A with floats


P.85A details

[ennobee]

I'm now thinking the other way round.

What if the Defiant had been a success?
Would other manufacturers have added turrets to Spitfires, Thunderbolts, Ta 152's...
Where would you put a turret on a P39?
Can I fit a Lancaster tail turret onto the front of my long planned FW 189 Tilt Fan?
Hmmmm...

I love the idea of the Defiant being a success, especially with the main reasons of it becoming a failure more having to do with minor design choices rather then with the general layout. Mainly the fact that the Defiant had all of its armament in its rear turret yet no real way of the gunner communicating with the pilot. One wonders what would have happened if in 1940, instead of all of England concentrating on building Spitfires and Hurricanes, someone at the Air Ministry would have worked with B&P to take the lessons learned from real battle and using them to make the Defiant Mk.III a successful aircraft in its own role.  Unfortunately, the Defiant had the politics of the time against it. With not only itself, but also the Blackburn Roc failing to deliver, the fault was sought in the concept itself. And with England now under attack on its own territory, mass production and further development of the existing fighters was far more important then trying to rescue a plane that already had a failed start.

So how could a successful Defiant Mk III, IV or even V look like?
The obvious idea: give it internal radio for communication between pilot and gunner. Also give it some form of forward armament, even at the cost of deleting some of the firepower in the turret.
Next idea: rebrand it from being a heavy fighter to a fighter-bomber ground support plane comparable to what the Germans did with the Messerschmitt 110. Build operations and tactics around the strength of the plane -massive firepower sideways and to the back- may be use it as the first AC-130 style gunship.
Further development: with half of the country already producing parts for the Spitfire and Hurricane fighters, have the next version Mk IV or V use as many parts of those planes as possible - I mean they already use the engine and guns - to help both construction as well as maintenance in the field.

Far future: Like with late-war / post-war developments of the Grumman Avenger, Douglas Skyraider and comparable planes, a multitude of roles will open up where the capacity of carrying massive defensive armament is not as important as the capacity of carrying period, surviving Defiants Mk VII would have their turrets removed in favor of an extra seat -or two-, radar equipment or comparable electronics, special equipment or just extra cargo space for use as a squadron hack...

I currently have some ideas on a 'Boulton-Paul Reliant': a derived version of the Defiant as Squadron support/training/VIP/special operations plane kind-of based on the later use of the Yakovlev Yak-7 two-seater. (Including a heavily modified  version from the famous 666 Squadron under direct orders of Comodore Raimond)

'Niklas 

[zenrat]

Today I dug out an Airfix Hurricane & a Revell Lancaster...

[NARSES2]

I'm just amazed at all the idea's this new Airfix kit has produced ! Maybe someone should send the link to Airfix ? 

As for mine well the real world model is just about finished which means I can make a start on my Aden based coastal patrol version and my navalised version shortly 

[DarrenP]

wonder ho the defiant would have performed as a single seat fighter with 8 forward firing 303's

[Mossie]

Probably pretty well, Boulton Paul expected the P.94 to be good for 360mph, in between the Spit and Hurri.  It was to be armed with 12 x .303's or 4x Hissos.

Yes, I know about the Beaufighter/Lancaster/Mosquito one off/Miles M20 (possibly Halifax and Baracuda) all having the same layout, but that's as they came as a power egg configuration, so Dizzy's Reliant makes sense even if I don't agree with it. 

There's more basis for this than you might expect, the Defiant TT.II was to get the Merlin 24 fitted to the Lancaster.  They decided the TT.I had enough power, so it was never ordered.  This might have made the basis for further marks of the Defiant as ennobee has mentioned.