What if

Hot Research Topics => Aircraft, Armor, Weapons and Ships by Topic => Topic started by: apophenia on March 11, 2010, 01:46:08 pm

Title: Boulton Paul Defiant
Post by: apophenia on March 11, 2010, 01:46:08 pm
[images deleted to spare Upload Folder]
Title: Re: Boulton Paul Defiant
Post by: joncarrfarrelly on March 12, 2010, 10:21:49 pm
( What's the Kentish for Schräge Musik ??)
Ummm,  we did it before the bloody cabbage-eaters?  ;D
Title: Re: Boulton Paul Defiant
Post by: Caveman on March 13, 2010, 02:54:50 am
( What's the Kentish for Schräge Musik ??)
Ummm,  we did it before the bloody cabbage-eaters?  ;D
Certainly
http://www.aviastar.org/air/england/west_f29-27.php (http://www.aviastar.org/air/england/west_f29-27.php)
Title: Re: Boulton Paul Defiant
Post by: joncarrfarrelly on March 13, 2010, 08:52:16 am
( What's the Kentish for Schräge Musik ??)
Ummm,  we did it before the bloody cabbage-eaters?  ;D
Certainly
http://www.aviastar.org/air/england/west_f29-27.php (http://www.aviastar.org/air/england/west_f29-27.php)

Yep and the competitor, the lovely Vickers 161:
http://www.aviastar.org/air/england/vickers_161.php

We now return you to the subject at hand, how about a Fairey Prince powered Defiant?
Title: Re: Boulton Paul Defiant
Post by: GTX on March 13, 2010, 01:07:08 pm
Some more ideas from the Turreted Fighters (http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,17868.0.html) thread:

(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/More%20Creations/HercDifiant.jpg)

Super Defiant:
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/More%20Creations/SuperDefiantfix.jpg)

Interdictor variant:
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/More%20Creations/SuperDefiantBomberFix.jpg)

Anti-tank variant:
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/More%20Creations/SuperDefiantAntitank.jpg)

Competitor for Blackburn Roc:
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/More%20Creations/6dc54dd0.jpg?t=1238473939)

Regards,

Greg
Title: Re: Boulton Paul Defiant
Post by: GTX on March 13, 2010, 01:14:31 pm
And, who could forget the hero of the Battle of Britain - the Boulton Paul Defiant Corvette class airship.  Operating as part of His Majesty's Royal Air Fleet (RAF), these were instrumental in defending Britain from Hitler's/Goering's Luftwaffe Zeppelin attacks of 1940:

(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/More%20Creations/ffeba38f.jpg?t=1238261671)

Regards,

Greg
Title: Whiffed Defiant
Post by: sequoiaranger on March 14, 2010, 09:55:25 am
>Here's a few Defiant whifs that I've noticed on the site:<

I'll add mine:

http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php?action=gallery;sa=view;id=1192

I don't know what perversity has made the Defiant a favorite aircraft of mine. Maybe it was, back in 1962, when this California teenager strolled into a REAL hobby shop in Northwood (outside London), and fondled a cheap (2 Shilling, I believe) bag with black plastic and an exciting illustration of a strange "fighter" with a turret behind the pilot. I had never heard of such a thing. I was introduced to the wonderful world of Airfix, FROG, and Humbrol (paint tins) and was HOOKED! I went home with my suitcase STUFFED with such bags and boxes.
Title: Re: Boulton Paul Defiant
Post by: Arc3371 on March 14, 2010, 01:04:44 pm
A variant of the GTX twin Defiant

(http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f224/arc3371/ZXA4.jpg)
Title: Re: Boulton Paul Defiant
Post by: Logan Hartke on March 15, 2010, 08:28:15 am
Those are great.  They really look like they should have been.

Good work, apophenia.

Cheers,

Logan
Title: Re: Boulton Paul Defiant
Post by: NARSES2 on March 19, 2010, 01:42:00 am
I do like that  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Boulton Paul Defiant
Post by: Stargazer2006 on March 19, 2010, 06:15:29 am
Omigod! The French Defiants are just amazing! And they look so right! Congratulations, apophenia. Wish someone would now turn them into plastic...
Title: Re: Boulton Paul Defiant
Post by: Stargazer2006 on March 19, 2010, 08:10:31 am
Another great Defiant project on this very forum, the Defiant-ski...

http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,27631.msg417601/topicseen.html#new (http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,27631.msg417601/topicseen.html#new)
Title: Re: Boulton Paul Defiant
Post by: Sauragnmon on March 19, 2010, 09:04:51 am
If I'm looking at it right, I see a nicely sized belly radiator on that thing... it almost begs for a jet conversion similar to the Yaks... hmmmm... evil thoughts abound...
Title: Re: Boulton Paul Defiant
Post by: GTX on March 25, 2010, 12:57:14 am
Long-range escort fighter?


Interesting - extra fuel tank where the gunner was?

Regards,

Greg
Title: Re: Boulton Paul Defiant
Post by: Sauragnmon on March 25, 2010, 03:50:04 am
not quite - he moved the pit back, Greg - the nose is longer on top.
Title: Re: Boulton Paul Defiant
Post by: Hobbes on March 25, 2010, 11:15:25 am
I wonder what it would look like with a Dalek turret instead of the guns. Or an astromech droid (R2D2)  :cheers:
Title: Re: Boulton Paul Defiant
Post by: GTX on March 26, 2010, 11:34:43 am
I wonder what it would look like with a Dalek turret instead of the guns. Or an astromech droid (R2D2)  :cheers:

Out you!!!! ;D

Regards,

Greg
Title: Re: Boulton Paul Defiant
Post by: GTX on March 26, 2010, 11:35:32 am
Spot on Saura. Yes, the cockpit is now where the turret was. The former cockpit area is now one huge fuel tank (oil tanks moved to the inboard wing leading edges).

The scenario was: what if the R-R Peregrine was killed earlier and the Whirlwind along with it. Defiant production lines could be adapted for a long-range fighter using largely unmodified parts. (The same layout might be adaptable as a PR bird).

Of course, the pilot's view on landing and take-off would challenging to put it mildly. In the air, though, the view from the cockpit is improved by use of a Whirlwind canopy (Aeroclub set C078 also makes modelling easier  ;D ).

I like it!

Regards,

Greg
Title: Re: Boulton Paul Defiant
Post by: kitbasher on March 27, 2010, 06:29:45 am
Long-range escort fighter?
Very elegant.
 ;D ;D
Title: Re: Boulton Paul Defiant
Post by: Stargazer2006 on May 06, 2010, 05:11:18 am
Very, very nice.  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Boulton Paul Defiant
Post by: Mossie on May 06, 2010, 06:25:11 am
I like those. :thumbsup:

A pet whiff of mine is what if the Spitfire hadn't continued in production (it came close to being canned on a few occasions due to production concerns)?  What would have replaced it?  The Defiant is one of those that is a good possibility, a version with fixed armament flew & was a good performer.  So how would it have been developed?  Those profiles show how it might have been.
Title: Re: Boulton Paul Defiant
Post by: sideshowbob9 on May 06, 2010, 07:25:35 am
Damn! Who knew Defiants could polish up so nice?  :wub:
Title: Jet Defiant?
Post by: sequoiaranger on May 06, 2010, 08:07:41 am
>If I'm looking at it right, I see a nicely sized belly radiator on that thing... it almost begs for a jet conversion similar to the Yaks... hmmmm... evil thoughts abound...<

>Jet Defiant! I bet no-one's come up with that one before <

I would envision not a single-jet like the Yak 15/17/19 (too large an airframe--the Yaks were diminutive aircraft), but either a through-the-wing jet arrangement like the Gloster Meteors, or doubled-under like the the Bell P-59 Airacomet. In fact, carrying the Defiant concept of a "broadside-firing" bomber destroyer into the nascent jet age, one could have fixed fuselage guns (where the turret would have been) pointed out at a 30-degree angle to the front and side "Schrage Musik"-style (or "Spooky-gunship-style") to rake enemy aircraft while flying through a formation at the same altitude.  A very slight, nose-up banking movement would keep the guns on target a little while longer.

It CAN'T be any more an idiotic idea than the Defiant itself!!  :blink:
Title: Re: Boulton Paul Defiant
Post by: Caveman on May 07, 2010, 03:14:56 am
Damn! Who knew Defiants could polish up so nice?  :wub:

Well this project based loosely on a defiant (from secretprojects) looks pretty good to me. Very nice lines on it.

Title: Re: Boulton Paul Defiant
Post by: sideshowbob9 on May 07, 2010, 03:46:29 am
^ Oh, I agree, there are a lot of Boulton Paul aircraft and projects that were lookers. The original Mamba Balliol comes to mind.
Title: Re: Boulton Paul Defiant
Post by: Maverick on December 13, 2010, 07:50:23 pm
Brilliant stuff Apophenia.

Very good looking & plausible profiles & backstory.

Regards,

Mav
Title: Re: Boulton Paul Defiant
Post by: NARSES2 on December 14, 2010, 01:26:00 am
I like those composites  :thumbsup:

Always fancied doing a single seat Defiant fighter myself
Title: Re: Boulton Paul Defiant
Post by: sideshowbob9 on December 14, 2010, 12:26:57 pm
Those Blenheim missiles look great!  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Boulton Paul Defiant
Post by: kitnut617 on December 15, 2010, 01:56:40 pm
Well this one should go of with a good bang then ----
Title: Re: Boulton Paul Defiant
Post by: redstar72 on December 16, 2010, 08:16:59 am
Good work!
But I think it's necessary to make new, beefed up and more strong undercarriage for the Hotspur - as it has to takeoff now carrying the Defiant on its back!
Title: Re: Boulton Paul Defiant
Post by: sideshowbob9 on December 16, 2010, 10:44:29 am
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!
Title: Re: Boulton Paul Defiant
Post by: PR19_Kit on December 16, 2010, 03:01:53 pm
Oh yes, that upgraded single-seat Defiant really looks good!  :cheers:
 
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.
Title: Re: Boulton Paul Defiant
Post by: rickshaw on December 17, 2010, 08:45:45 pm
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.
Title: Re: Boulton Paul Defiant
Post by: NARSES2 on December 18, 2010, 02:07:39 am
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
Title: Re: Boulton Paul Defiant
Post by: redstar72 on December 18, 2010, 10:45:21 am
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!
Title: Re: Defiant Disinformation
Post by: dy031101 on December 18, 2010, 06:14:48 pm
Hell yeah, if they could work out an engine-mounted arrangement for a machinecannon.  Another way to give it a measure of forward firepower.
Title: Re: Boulton Paul Defiant
Post by: dy031101 on December 18, 2010, 09:29:56 pm
I'm pretty sure that the supercharger arrangement on the Merlin prevented a motor gun. But Jerry didn't know that  ;D

Alright, and neither did I.  :banghead:

It's cool though.  :mellow:
Title: Re: Boulton Paul Defiant
Post by: rickshaw on December 18, 2010, 09:36:21 pm
I'm pretty sure that the supercharger arrangement on the Merlin prevented a motor gun. But Jerry didn't know that  ;D

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.
Title: Re: Boulton Paul Defiant
Post by: NARSES2 on December 19, 2010, 02:06:19 am
Decided I will dig out an old Airfix Defiant and make her into a single seat fighter thanks to this thread  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Boulton Paul Defiant
Post by: PR19_Kit on December 19, 2010, 05:26:44 am
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........
Title: Re: Boulton Paul Defiant
Post by: Mossie on December 21, 2010, 03:37:21 pm

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.
Title: Re: Boulton Paul Defiant
Post by: Mossie on December 22, 2010, 01:47:40 pm
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?
Title: Re: Boulton Paul Defiant
Post by: PR19_Kit on December 22, 2010, 01:54:12 pm
Imagine how complicated it would get with a contra-prop!! You'd have almost no shells leaving the guns at all!
Title: Re: Boulton Paul Defiant
Post by: kitnut617 on December 22, 2010, 05:36:27 pm
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).
Title: Re: Boulton Paul Defiant
Post by: rickshaw on December 22, 2010, 08:54:08 pm
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.   ;D
Title: Re: Boulton Paul Defiant
Post by: NARSES2 on December 23, 2010, 02:44:34 am
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 interrupter gear? 

Perhaps surprisingly Mossie there's a couple of WWI aircraft with synchronised mg's and 4 bladed props. RE8 and Siemens Schukert D.IV off the top of my head
Title: Re: Boulton Paul Defiant
Post by: rickshaw on December 23, 2010, 04:06:13 am
I think its a combination of higher RPM and more blades that caused a problem for synchronised MGs.  As RPM of the prop started approaching the RPM of the machine gun, something wasn't going to work very well...  ;)
Title: Re: Boulton Paul Defiant
Post by: kitnut617 on December 23, 2010, 06:52:20 am
I think though Rick, that as aircraft started flying at 400 mph and faster, the prop speed was actually slowed.  From what I've read this was about 2000 rpm but on some it was 2500 rpm.  The problem of having the rpm to high is you run into the blade tips going supersonic.  On a Tempest for instance with a prop of almost 14'-0" diameter there was a very real chance of the tips going supersonic, the blade tips moving at 1466 feet per second and that was when it was standing still on the tarmac with the engine being run up.  Add another 450 mph to that and you have a problem with supersonic tips.  And of course as you went higher in altitude, that compounded the problem.

When I went to Reno to watch the air racing some years ago, I was quite surprised at how slow the props turned on the Unlimited Class racers and the sound was something else.  Not so in the T-6 Texan/Harvard class where they're not allowed much in modifications, you could soon hear when they had reach their maximum speed, the racket from the blade tips as they approach supersonic speed was terrible (anyone who's seen a Harvard in a dive would understand what I'm talking about)
Title: Re: Boulton Paul Defiant
Post by: PR19_Kit on December 23, 2010, 08:19:47 am
.....(anyone who's seen a Harvard in a dive would understand what I'm talking about)

Try flying in one! OUCH!  :banghead:
Title: High-Flying Defiant
Post by: sequoiaranger on December 23, 2010, 09:14:11 am
>[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.<

Careful---those high-flying Ju-86P's aren't as helpless as they might seem--they will have my "He-121 Stratsospheric Fighter" (W.I.P.) to protect them. Watch out! The same ol' "hit 'em from the front and below" might apply to your Defiant, and at that altitude there is more room to approach from underneath!!
Title: Re: Boulton Paul Defiant
Post by: joncarrfarrelly on December 23, 2010, 03:52:27 pm
The answer to the synchronization 'problem' is the same one the Germans used, electrically ignited primers.
Title: Re: High-Flying Defiant
Post by: rickshaw on December 23, 2010, 04:15:01 pm
>[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.<

Careful---those high-flying Ju-86P's aren't as helpless as they might seem--they will have my "He-121 Stratsospheric Fighter" (W.I.P.) to protect them. Watch out! The same ol' "hit 'em from the front and below" might apply to your Defiant, and at that altitude there is more room to approach from underneath!!

Ah, but your He121 won't be there the first or second time it happens.  Defiants as "Air Dominance" fighters!  [insert evil laughter]...   ;D ;D ;D

Anyway, plenty of room in the longer wings for the 12 MGs Defiants are reputed to have carried!   ;D ;D :o
Title: Re: Boulton Paul Defiant
Post by: pyro-manic on December 26, 2010, 05:13:30 pm
Hmmm, I like the Schrage-musik idea! I recently acquired a Defiant kit, and that might well be how it ends up. :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Boulton Paul Defiant
Post by: rickshaw on December 26, 2010, 06:13:34 pm
High-altitude Defiant conversion.

Like that one.  Mmm, tempting, tempting...  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Boulton Paul Defiant
Post by: sideshowbob9 on December 28, 2010, 09:35:53 am
Love the Schräge Musik idea!  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Boulton Paul Defiant
Post by: GTX on December 31, 2010, 12:47:48 pm
I'm toying with the idea of a RN FAA carrier based version - say the Roc was beaten by a Boulton Paul Sea Defiant with folding wings and at least a couple of forward firing MGs.

Regards,

Greg
Title: Re: Boulton Paul Defiant
Post by: pyro-manic on December 31, 2010, 04:24:55 pm
Put the guns outboard of the folds - Two or three per wing, for 4 or 6 forward-firing .303s. Another option could be a pair of cowling-mounted synchronised guns?
Title: Re: Boulton Paul Defiant
Post by: GTX on January 01, 2011, 01:01:54 pm
I was thinking of 2 MGs in each outer wing.  Hadn't really gotten to the details yet though - anyone have a good cutaway drawing that I can refer to?

regards,

Greg
Title: Re: Boulton Paul Defiant
Post by: GTX on January 08, 2011, 09:42:31 pm
The attached drawing (courtesy of Justo Miranda) might help re the placement of wing MGs for the Defiant.

I am thinking of replacing the outer wing tank with a pair of MGs and adding a couple of drop tanks (probably similar to those from the Hurricane) to help make up the lost fuel.

(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/F111/Escanear0005.jpg)

Regards,

Greg
Title: Re: Boulton Paul Defiant
Post by: GTX on January 08, 2011, 09:55:31 pm
Some more inspiration for the Defiant - also from Justo:

(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/F111/Escanear0010.jpg)
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/F111/Escanear0009.jpg)
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/F111/Escanear0008.jpg)
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/F111/Escanear0007.jpg)
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/F111/Escanear0003.jpg)
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/F111/Escanear0002.jpg)
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/GTwiner/F111/Escanear0001.jpg)

Regards,

Greg
Title: Re: Boulton Paul Defiant
Post by: rickshaw on January 09, 2011, 05:28:22 pm
Greg, interesting drawings.  Obviously it was possible to replace the outer wing tank with two MGs if that drawing is to be believed.  I could though, foresee handling problems with the ammunition having to be outboard in the next section and you might have problems putting the plumbing through the gun compartment or the ammunition compartment for a drop tank.  Never a good idea to mix ammunition and fuel.

The fairing around the cannons on the rear decking is interesting though.  Obviously there was some drag there which necessitated it.  That turret must have have interesting effects on the streamlining.
Title: Re: Boulton Paul Defiant
Post by: rickshaw on January 12, 2011, 05:43:36 pm
Browning .50s were a rare weapon in RAF service until about 1943, Apophenia.  I'd expect them to be .303in.  You also have to fit the ammunition feed and supply in the wing as well.  .50in might be a bit big and heavy for that (that far outboard).
Title: Re: Boulton Paul Defiant
Post by: Old Wombat on January 12, 2011, 06:07:33 pm
From memory (I'm too lazy to check on the web), actual wartime R&D tried to fit an extra 2 wing guns but this severely reduced the plane's fuel load &, therefore, loiter time (as a night-fighter).
Title: Re: Boulton Paul Defiant
Post by: GTX on January 12, 2011, 11:56:22 pm
I was thinking of this Sea Defiant entering service around the same ime as the RW Blackburn Roc - 1939.  Therefore I am tending toward twin 303s in the outer wings.  Not saying it would bave been the most stellar of armaments/performers, but it would have been better than the Roc IMHO.  My scenario is that Boulton Paul beat Blackburn and thus you get the Sea Defiant.  Range is affected, but as I have said above, I am planning on (and in fact have already purchased) adding a couple of drop tanks (similar to those from the Hurricane) to help make up the lost fuel.

I just want to see a folded wing Defiant in this sort of scheme:

(http://www.clavework-graphics.co.uk/aircraft/fairey_fulmar/Fulmar_Mk1_GB_806NAS_1.png)

 ;D

Regards,

Greg
Title: Re: Boulton Paul Defiant
Post by: rickshaw on January 13, 2011, 01:12:44 am
I was thinking, why not just substitute a Hurricane or even a Fulmar wing for the Defiant wing?  That way you'd get your MGs and still retain the wing tanks/range.
Title: Re: Boulton Paul Defiant
Post by: GTX on January 13, 2011, 01:26:23 am
I was thinking, why not just substitute a Hurricane or even a Fulmar wing for the Defiant wing?  That way you'd get your MGs and still retain the wing tanks/range.

Err, because I will have a Defiant ...

Regards,

Greg
Title: Re: Boulton Paul Defiant
Post by: rickshaw on January 13, 2011, 02:13:42 am
I was thinking, why not just substitute a Hurricane or even a Fulmar wing for the Defiant wing?  That way you'd get your MGs and still retain the wing tanks/range.

Err, because I will have a Defiant ...

Regards,

Greg

Such a lack of imagination, Greg...   ;D
Title: Re: Boulton Paul Defiant
Post by: tomo pauk on May 05, 2011, 12:36:38 pm
The Double Defiant, here as 3-seater night fighter. Note the radiators moved in front of leading edge. RAF's 'P-38' perhaps, as a 'normal' fighter-bomber, until/unless we field double Hurricane or Spitfire.

(http://www2.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/6a00fdbff5bdef07b5c9e7f25309f4a4ff9b4f1d314cfc890bb057119531fff75g.jpg)
Title: Re: Boulton Paul Defiant
Post by: tomo pauk on May 05, 2011, 01:11:24 pm
Played a little with Greg's profile, to create a long range fighter. Cockpit is moved back, to create room for a fuel tank more or less around the center of gravity (akin to most of the Spits, or F4U). The later version features bubble top. The aerial can be moved up, of course, and the radiator(s) to the leading edge.

(http://www1.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/10629123aa8bb0e3329df044806f0896dc557ab19eda26536415c9dc53a1497b5g.jpg)
Title: Re: Boulton Paul Defiant
Post by: GTX on May 05, 2011, 01:21:38 pm
 :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Boulton Paul Defiant
Post by: Gondor on May 05, 2011, 02:16:12 pm
Nice, certainly one to get the punters scratching their heads at, especially the lower of the two single seater's  :thumbsup:

Gondor
Title: Re: Boulton Paul Defiant
Post by: pyro-manic on May 05, 2011, 03:52:08 pm
I do like that. What about a "long" Merlin or Griffon (cowling from Spitfire) for a later version?
Title: Re: Boulton Paul Defiant
Post by: tomo pauk on May 06, 2011, 09:30:33 am
Sabre comes to mind, too. 2100+ HP, reliable & available in 1943.
Naturally, with wing leading edge radiators, like post-war Tempest prototypes carried, or as Firefly Mk. IV.
Title: Re: Boulton Paul Defiant
Post by: ysi_maniac on June 01, 2012, 10:54:29 am
Played a little with Greg's profile, to create a long range fighter. Cockpit is moved back, to create room for a fuel tank more or less around the center of gravity (akin to most of the Spits, or F4U). The later version features bubble top. The aerial can be moved up, of course, and the radiator(s) to the leading edge.

(http://www1.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/10629123aa8bb0e3329df044806f0896dc557ab19eda26536415c9dc53a1497b5g.jpg)

Love that bobble top!
Title: Re: Boulton Paul Defiant
Post by: ysi_maniac on June 01, 2012, 10:56:34 am
My contribution: liaison version

(http://i1080.photobucket.com/albums/j340/ysi_maniac/Drawing/defiant_liason.jpg)
Title: Re: Boulton Paul Defiant
Post by: Stargazer2006 on August 27, 2012, 04:41:27 am
The bubble-top version looks fantastic, but way too handsome for a Boulton-Paul product!!!  ;D
Title: Re: Boulton Paul Defiant
Post by: PR19_Kit on August 27, 2012, 07:41:02 am
The bubble-top version looks fantastic, but way too handsome for a Boulton-Paul product!!!  ;D

I'm with you there Stephane!

With leading edge radiators and the aerial farm above the fuselage it would look almost sleek!   :lol:
Title: Re: Boulton Paul Defiant
Post by: Sauragnmon on July 08, 2013, 02:03:19 am
So I had a wild thought roll through my skull just a little bit ago... of mating the rear section of a Defiant, with the forward section of a Tiffy - Engine and wings from, say, a 1B Tiffy, with the turret and tail from a Defiant, or similar, so in essence it becomes a heavy fighter of a style.  I figure the Tiffy's got the power to pull the weight, since they had a massive payload capacity outside the guns.  I don't know how it would scale, though...

Thoughts?
Title: Re: Boulton Paul Defiant
Post by: NARSES2 on July 08, 2013, 07:14:59 am
Well Hawkers did do a turret fighter - the Hotspur - so you could say it was a latter development. Use the wings from a Tiffy ? Maybe with small bomb bays in them for AP bombs ?

Go on you know you want to  ;D
Title: Re: Boulton Paul Defiant
Post by: PR19_Kit on July 08, 2013, 07:24:52 am
The Hotspur was hardly a thing of beauty though, was it? Almost ANYTHING would improve its looks, with or without the turret.
Title: Re: Boulton Paul Defiant
Post by: NARSES2 on July 08, 2013, 07:37:37 am
I've always found the Defiant an attractive looking aeroplane. Often toyed with the idea of a FAA single seat fighter one, maybe one day that old Airfix kit will find a use  :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Boulton Paul Defiant
Post by: kitnut617 on July 08, 2013, 08:25:48 am
So I had a wild thought roll through my skull just a little bit ago... of mating the rear section of a Defiant, with the forward section of a Tiffy - Engine and wings from, say, a 1B Tiffy, with the turret and tail from a Defiant, or similar, so in essence it becomes a heavy fighter of a style.  I figure the Tiffy's got the power to pull the weight, since they had a massive payload capacity outside the guns.  I don't know how it would scale, though...

Thoughts?

You're describing a Hawker Henley ----
Title: Re: Boulton Paul Defiant
Post by: joncarrfarrelly on July 08, 2013, 10:13:07 am
So I had a wild thought roll through my skull just a little bit ago... of mating the rear section of a Defiant, with the forward section of a Tiffy - Engine and wings from, say, a 1B Tiffy, with the turret and tail from a Defiant, or similar, so in essence it becomes a heavy fighter of a style.  I figure the Tiffy's got the power to pull the weight, since they had a massive payload capacity outside the guns.  I don't know how it would scale, though...

Thoughts?

See post 59 on page 4 of the thread, B-P P.96 enlarged Defiant projects, among the proposals was one with a Sabre engine.
Title: Re: Boulton Paul Defiant
Post by: Mossie on October 25, 2013, 06:08:49 am
P.85 Naval Defiant, deeper fuselage and new vertical tail.  P.85A was drawn up with a Hercules, P.85B with a Merlin.  It was passed over in favour of the Blackburn Roc, a much slower aircraft.

Original images here:
http://crimso.msk.ru/Site/Arts/Art3537.htm (http://crimso.msk.ru/Site/Arts/Art3537.htm)

P.85B three view, with a side view of the P.85A
(http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i176/Mossie105/Aircraft/BoultonPaulP85NavalDefiant02.jpg) (http://s72.photobucket.com/user/Mossie105/media/Aircraft/BoultonPaulP85NavalDefiant02.jpg.html)

P.85A with it's boots on:
(http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i176/Mossie105/Aircraft/BoultonPaulP85NavalDefiant03.jpg) (http://s72.photobucket.com/user/Mossie105/media/Aircraft/BoultonPaulP85NavalDefiant03.jpg.html)

P.85A details
(http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i176/Mossie105/Aircraft/BoultonPaulP85NavalDefiant01.jpg) (http://s72.photobucket.com/user/Mossie105/media/Aircraft/BoultonPaulP85NavalDefiant01.jpg.html)
Title: Re: Boulton Paul Defiant
Post by: KJ_Lesnick on October 25, 2013, 06:48:07 pm
A variant of the GTX twin Defiant

(http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f224/arc3371/ZXA4.jpg)
Now that's dakka
Title: Re: Boulton Paul Defiant
Post by: Weaver on May 26, 2020, 10:35:01 am
The Times published this today:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EY8P1A1X0AIdt_J?format=jpg&name=large)

Posted on Twitter by Alan Allport here: https://twitter.com/Alan_Allport/status/1265247429802237953?s=20
Title: Re: Boulton Paul Defiant
Post by: tigercat on May 26, 2020, 12:36:18 pm
read that today .very interesting .
Title: Re: Boulton Paul Defiant
Post by: Weaver on May 26, 2020, 12:43:19 pm
I follow quite a few WWII/Aviation historians on Twitter: they're not very impressed with it. They seem to think the statistics are cherry-picked.
Title: Re: Boulton Paul Defiant
Post by: tigercat on May 26, 2020, 01:00:48 pm
It's been making waves ?  It's probably slightly  better  than we thought but not as good as he claimed?
Title: Re: Boulton Paul Defiant
Post by: Weaver on May 26, 2020, 08:40:19 pm
Just read some informed opinion to the effect that it wasn't a flawed concept per se, the problem was that it didn't get the kind of war it was planned for. It was a bomber-destroyer, and seemed to be quite good at it in the absence of enemy fighters escorting the bombers. Before May 1940, German fighters didn't have the range to reach the UK, so had France and the Low Countries not fallen, German bombers would have been unescorted and Defiants could have made quite a mess of them. It was the ability of the Luftwaffe to fly escort missions over the UK from France that put the Defiant on the back foot.

In hindsight, the best policy might have been, rather than withdrawing the Defiant entirely, to instead deploy the Defiant squadrons to the north of the UK where bomber attacks were generally unescorted, either due to being launched from Norway or to their French-based escorts reaching bingo fuel and having to go home. That would have allowed the Defiant to fight in the situation it was designed for, while freeing up Spitfire and Hurricane squadrons from the defense of the south.
Title: Re: Boulton Paul Defiant
Post by: The Wooksta! on May 27, 2020, 02:11:38 am
141 Squadron were flying Defiants from Acklington in 1940/41, although largely night patrols.  I downloaded their ORBs for that period yesterday.
Title: Re: Boulton Paul Defiant
Post by: zenrat on May 27, 2020, 03:10:29 am
"...with proper fighter protection the Defiant might have acquitted itself well..."

When similar is said of the Me 110 it is with derision and used as part of the argument that the Messerschmitt was a failure as a fighter.
Title: Re: Boulton Paul Defiant
Post by: The Wooksta! on May 27, 2020, 04:31:41 am
The fact remains that the Defiant, regarded as a failure, was a better nightfighter than the P61 Black Widow, which is regarded as a success.