WW II plane buffs?




BoultonPaulDefiant.jpg

Boulton Paul Defiant
Photo: Boulton Paul Association​
 
Boulton Paul Defiant.

Obsolete before it flew.

It had no forward fifing guns.

It was designed at a time when a Fighter had a very short range and only a pair of machine guns as armament.

In the even of war it was anticipated that waves of bombers would attack and because of the short range of fighters they would be unescorted and relying on their own defences.

the Defiant was designed to fly up underneath the bomber formations and to use their turret guns to shoot up into their undersides, if any fighter did show up then the turret guns would shoot them down as well.

By the time the war came the whole idea was obsolete. Fighter had longer range and were a lot faster and better armed.

It did some useful work as a night fighter and saw out it's days as a target tug.
 
It's a beautiful aircraft, a sleek fighter that looks like a bomber's twin-gun turret was inserted into as an April Fool's joke.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Boulton Paul Defiant.

Obsolete before it flew.

It had no forward fifing guns.

It was designed at a time when a Fighter had a very short range and only a pair of machine guns as armament.

In the even of war it was anticipated that waves of bombers would attack and because of the short range of fighters they would be unescorted and relying on their own defences.

the Defiant was designed to fly up underneath the bomber formations and to use their turret guns to shoot up into their undersides, if any fighter did show up then the turret guns would shoot them down as well.

By the time the war came the whole idea was obsolete. Fighter had longer range and were a lot faster and better armed.
Click to expand...


Gosh. What was I thinking? I feel as though I've ruined the whole thread.


Captain_Swoop said:
It did some useful work as a night fighter and saw out it's days as a target tug.
Click to expand...


Some useful work. Yes.


All was not lost for the Defiant series however, as they were reinstituted back into action as converted night-fighters. Defiants were now were fielded with the new mark of Defiant NF.Mk I and were naturally based on the standard Mk I marks from earlier. The NF.Mk IA followed soon afterwards with the potent AI.Mk IV / VI interception radar systems for increased lethality in the dark of night. The British were already proving themselves masters with radar development and would utilize this expertise throughout its defensive parameter during the Battle of Britain. During the span of 1940 through 1941, the Defiant accounted for more enemy air kills than any other RAF aircraft could boast - an impressive statistic considering the RAF also had access to the durable Hurricanes and the excellent Spitfires. At its peak of use, no fewer than 13 RAF squadrons were fielding Defiants in the defensive role.
Click to expand...
my bolding

Source: Mlitary Factory​


sts60 said:
It's a beautiful aircraft, a sleek fighter that looks like a bomber's twin-gun turret was inserted into as an April Fool's joke.
Click to expand...


I think they look grouse. Unusual to be sure, but the four .303s with 600 rounds each were certainly no joking matter.
 
SUSpilot said:
For some reason, I have a fondness for the TBM Avenger. No, I don't know why...

Of course, as mentioned, the B-25 deserves more attention.

And, although I love the C-47, don't forget the C-54 (born of the DC-6).
Click to expand...
.
When CDF was using the Turkey for fire suppression, and they were flying out of Burbank, the traffic on the freeway could be moving faster, when there was a headwind. :)
The PBY had a similar problem. A snail-like climb rate. It would have to circle a few times after takeoff to get sufficient altitude to clear the mountains around the San Fernando Valley.
The opening sequence in "Always", with the PBY scooping from the lake is one of my favorite scenes.
The Bombardier CL-415Ts do that here now.
 

Attachments

  • SuperScooper-106.jpg
    SuperScooper-106.jpg
    80.2 KB · Views: 2
  • SuperScooper-101.jpg
    SuperScooper-101.jpg
    117 KB · Views: 3
Totals for Night Fighters can't be compared with totals for Day Fighters.

The total for Defiants against other types is for kills by night fighters, not for all kills by other types.
Defiants were the first aircraft fitted with AI Radar, Spitfires and Hurricanes never got AI for night fighting. They wer withdrawn when Baufighters and Mosquitos started to come into service.

Night Fighters operated more or less uncontested against bombers at night.

Read 'Gunners Moon' by John Busby for the best account of night missions over Germany from the point of view of a gunner in a Lancaster..
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Gunners-Moon-R-A-F...1241&sr=1-1

Unless it was a clear night with a full moon they never saw the Night Fighter coming, the first they usualy knew about it was when it opened fire.

Later in the war tail warning radars were fitted to tell the gunner when anything was on their tail and also radar detectors that warned when they were painted by a German Night Fighter.

RAF Raids were accompanied by Mosquito night fighters when they came into service, their job was to fly ahead of the raid and engage German Night fighters before the main stream of bombers arrived.

Defiants were badly used in the B of B and over Dunkirk. They were never meant to be an offensive plane taking on enemy fighters. They should have been moved to Scotland and the North East of England where attacking bombers weren't escorted by fighters, they would have been operating in the role for which they were designed.
 
Last edited:
Uncle Otto said:
I was just thinking of the MC202 Folgore, on which the Centauro was based. It was to all accounts a superb dogfighter. The Italians could just never build enough of them fast enough to change the ultimate outcome of the war for them.

Italian aircraft of WWII generally get short shrift among all but aircraft buffs. Their SM79 Sparviero was one of the best medium bombers the Axis had at the beginning of the war, and the Germans considered it superior to anything they had as a torpedo bomber. To the extent that they sent German aircrews to train on it in Italy.
Click to expand...


I don't think the G.55 was based on the MC 202. All the Italian DB-engined aircraft bear a resemblance to each other (including the Re.2005), and for the Fiat and Macchi fighters we see this in their predecessors (G.50; MC 200), but the design paths were actually different.

The Sparviero might have been capable, but that's hard to judge since the training of the aircrews was abysmal. A fact that made the Regia Marina happy, since they too often found themselves the object of the enthusiastic attentions of their air comrades. They might have lost more ships to friendly fire if the Italian bomber crews had been able to hit something. (This is why Italian naval vessels began to sport bright candy-cane markings on their decks).

I have a soft spot for the Regia Aeronautica as a plane buff, but really their designs remained mediocre at best compared to their contemporary opposition. We can find examples where they did perform well, but only in the hands of an unusually skilled pilot - cases where the ability of the man made up for the defects of the machine.
 
Heard a large round motor fly over just now..
Skipped outside, and what to my wondering eyes did appear, but a Republic P-47 Thunderbolt (Jug)! First one I've seen out of captivity in many years!
When we were sent to West Germany in 1950 as part of the occupying forces, the USAF was still flying them around the countryside... :)
They were replaced in 1951 with F-84s.
 
I never liked the P-47, and it's hard to pinpoint precisely why. It just never really enthused me.

I might have argued aesthetics, but I like the MC 200 Saetta and that can hardly be considered more lovely. That also rules out performance, too.

Just don't like the Jug. Guess I don't need a reason.

ETA:

I also don't like the ME 262 - but oddly I do like the Nakajima Kikka.

So . . . I'm just weird, I guess. I have my own peculiar, inconsistent, arbitrary criteria.
 
Last edited:
Akhenaten said:
This?


[qimg]http://www.yvonneclaireadams.com/HostedStuff/KalinenK7.jpg[/qimg]
Kalinin K-7 Bomber​


Read more
Click to expand...

Even without the Empire Strikes Back embellishments that is one strange looking beast.

(Perhaps Stalin wasn't amused though, as the wikipedia article say that Kalinin was executed in 1938 as an "enemy of the state")
 
More boat then plane ...

... the Dornier Do X

It's so hard to get the balance right!
TW010-6.jpg


ETA. A comparison of the scale of these two beasts:
Kalinin-K-7-VS-Donier-Do-X.jpg
 
Last edited:
Comrade Raptor said:
I never liked the P-47, and it's hard to pinpoint precisely why. It just never really enthused me.

I might have argued aesthetics, but I like the MC 200 Saetta and that can hardly be considered more lovely. That also rules out performance, too.

Just don't like the Jug. Guess I don't need a reason.

ETA:

I also don't like the ME 262 - but oddly I do like the Nakajima Kikka.

So . . . I'm just weird, I guess. I have my own peculiar, inconsistent, arbitrary criteria.
Click to expand...

A plane that had 8 .50-caliber BMGs it unleashed into the Wehrmacht on the ground, and was capable of coming back with chunks of telephone pole lodged in the wing doesn't enthuse?
 
Alex Cured said:
Even without the Empire Strikes Back embellishments that is one strange looking beast.

(Perhaps Stalin wasn't amused though, as the wikipedia article say that Kalinin was executed in 1938 as an "enemy of the state")
Click to expand...


I'm inclined to side with Uncle Joe, I think. Anyone who would design something like that is probably everyone's enemy.



Alex Cured said:
... the Dornier Do X

It's so hard to get the balance right!


ETA. A comparison of the scale of these two beasts:
Kalinin-K-7-VS-Donier-Do-X.jpg
Click to expand...


Needs more guns, but you win.

:)
 
Russia had an obsession with big bits of kit. They had a tank with 3 turrets as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom