Right the Wrongs!

[M.A.D]

Right the Wrongs!

G'day gents

I have just finished reading about the Boulton Paul Defiant.
A design which I'm sure everyone knows and appreciates its inherent primary fault of design - its reliance on a turreted only armament!

So I come to thinking........ what and how could this fighter/interceptor be modified to right its wrongs, so as to get this design combat effective once again, at a time when the RAF needed every fighter/interceptor it could in the air during the Battle of Britain
In my opinion (and my request to those with the talent of drawing and CGI  ) would be:
1/ Have the turret able to rotate 360-degrees! So that it could be traversed to fire in the forward position!!
2/ Replace the 4x.303in (7.7mm) machine guns of the turret with 2 x heavier and more range-effective Browning M2 12.7mm machine guns!
3/ Fit the minimum of 1 x Browning M2 12.7mm machine gun in each wing, so as to allow the pilot to engage forward targets (and eliminate the Defiant's  inherent weakness and vulnerability to enemy frontal attack.
4/ Replace the Rolls Royce Merlin III of 1,030hp (768 kW) with a more powerful variant i.e. Merlin XX of 1,280hp (954 kW) or better, so as to not just compensate for the greater weight of modifications and improvements, but also that of over all performance!

P.S. if anyone is willing to create a profile of this modified Defiant I would greatly appreciate it! Also could I ask, if some is willing to drawing it - could I request the turret in the new 'forward' position, so as to emphasis this capability!!

So what other aircraft can we Right their Wrongs

- Fixing the inherent landing gear issues of both the Messerschmitt Bf-109 and Supermarine Spitfire? (frontal-view drawing to emphasis this!!)
- Focke-Wulf Fw-187 Falke (Falcon) long-range/escort fighter in Battle of Britain colours and markings!
- Henschel Hs 129 modified for carrier-based operations! hinged wings at engine, arrestor hook, more powerful engines and a torpedo under its fuselage and rockets under its wings!


I'd like to hear your views!!


M.A.D

[upnorth]

So what other aircraft can we Right their Wrongs

Re-engine any 1950s U.S. Navy jets that had Westinghouse engines.

That Would Give the Vought Cutlass enough thrust to be the aircraft it was meant to be. By most accounts it was a sound design crippled by poor engines.


I know the TF30 engine caused all kinds of problems for the F-14 Tomcat in it's early career. If the aircraft had to make do with being underpowered for the early part of its service, would an afterburning version of the Allison TF41 (lisence built Spey) be a more dependable power source until the GE F110 engine came along?

[jcf]

 The Defiant turret did rotate 360° and could be used in a forward firing position.
The fairings fore-and-aft of the turret were pneumatically operated and dropped
down as the guns rotated by. However, the pilot had no firing control, so even
when faced forward the gunner was in control. So perhaps giving him a firing button
would be a start.

Wing guns were mocked up on one turret-less  airframe as part of a proposal for a quickie
single-seat fighter conversion during the BoB, it had two .303 per wing. A single 20mm
was also tested, the original French turret design had been for a 20mm gun, but major
aerodynamic problems were encountered. Replacing the four .303 Brownings with two .50
Brownings isn't as straightforward as it seems, total weapon weight is different with one .50
weighing about as much as three .303, and the forces operating on the turret mechanism and
structure are far greater, which would lead to an increase in weight, which leads to the requirement
for a more powerful hydraulic system which increases weight etc, etc.

Defiant N1550 was converted as prototype for the Defiant II and was fitted with the Merlin XX,
speed improvements were minor, seven Mk.1 were converted on the line to Mk.II standard
and a further 210 Mk.II were built new. Externally the Mk.II looked little different, with minor
changes to the cowling, slightly deepened radiator bath and slightly enlarged rudder.


Mk. I prototype with turret forward.

[kitnut617]

Mk. I prototype with turret forward.

Jon, just wondering, were the guns synchronized ?

I was thinking the Defiant should have had the single stage Griffon of the Spitfire Mk.XII, two .5's in the turret, and a single 20mm in or under the each wing firing forward.

[jcf]

Seems that forward-firing was with the guns elevated only, as per the original requirement
for full upper-hemisphere coverage. Electrical interruption was used to keep the tail from
being shot-off, so synchronizing the guns for a straight-ahead firing mode was probably
feasible, but wing-mounted guns would have been simpler. The Turret Demon had forward
firing guns, so it's a mystery why the RAF dispensed with them in the requirement that led
to the Defiant.

[Daryl J.]

Reduce the size of the Tornado's Fin.   

 

[Weaver]

Reduce the size of the Tornado's Fin.   

 

What, and lose 440kg of fuel? 

[apophenia]

...The Turret Demon had forward firing guns, so it's a mystery why the RAF dispensed with them in the requirement that led to the Defiant.

It may have been force upon them by Rolls-Royce. The Merlin II was the last with synchronization gear (maybe dropped to make it simpler/faster to develop the Merlin III with a constant-speed prop?).

[M.A.D]

So what other aircraft can we Right their Wrongs

Re-engine any 1950s U.S. Navy jets that had Westinghouse engines.

I know the TF30 engine caused all kinds of problems for the F-14 Tomcat in it's early career.

Yes! two very good examples!!

M.A.D

[M.A.D]

Mk. I prototype with turret forward.

Excellent points JFC, many of which I was unaware of!
Thanks for the excellent photo, which emphasises the forward facing turret guns!

just wondering, were the guns synchronized

You took the words right out of my mouth Kitnut617!!

M.A.D

[upnorth]

Reduce the size of the Tornado's Fin.   

 

What, and lose 440kg of fuel? 

My understanding is that the fin tank usually is left empty on Tornadoes at all times. I think I read somewhere that it caused big centre of gravity and balance shifts both in the air and on the ground when the wings were swept back and the fin tank had anything in it.

[Rickshaw]

Seems that forward-firing was with the guns elevated only, as per the original requirement
for full upper-hemisphere coverage. Electrical interruption was used to keep the tail from
being shot-off, so synchronizing the guns for a straight-ahead firing mode was probably
feasible, but wing-mounted guns would have been simpler. The Turret Demon had forward
firing guns, so it's a mystery why the RAF dispensed with them in the requirement that led
to the Defiant.

Mechanical synchronisation would have been a nightmare.  Now, if they'd used electrical firing switches, it would have been relatively easy.  However, I wonder what effect four .303in MG's going off right next to the pilot's ears would have been like, as well as at night, the problem of flash would have done to his night vision.

I think the best thing would have been to remove the turret.  Put six .303in or two .50in MG's in underwing panniers, firing forward under each wing plus a pair of 20mm cannons in the upper decking (put the pilot where the turret was, which would have given room for them and their magazine).   Would have made a handy heavy fighter/bomber destroyer.  Spitfires and Hurricanes keep the Bf109s off while the Defiants close for the kill on the bombers.

[Kerick]

The TF-30 powered the F-111 also and had intake problems in its early career. Reengine F-14s with F-100s as was first planned in '67.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pratt_%26_Whitney_F100
The F-111 became such a maintenance hog because of the TF-30s and the mix of analog and digital avionics. It got to the point that each aircraft had been modified and repaired with so many different sets that each one became a individual maintenance headache. Unfortunately the avionics don't show up well in models. An F-111 with "turkey feathers" would be interesting.
Dump the swing wing for something made to go fast down low. 
Reengine the B-52 with CFM-56 or better.

[jcf]

apo: simply placing guns in the wing outside of the propeller disc would have been the likely
solution, and the CC type synchronization gear could be used on any engine, it was not type
dependent nor part of the engine. The RAF's overall switch to wing mounted armament had
more to do with its discontinuation than technical or manufacturing concerns.

Brian: yep, B-P used an electrical interruption system to prevent shooting into the airframe, so
a similar system for synchronization was probably possible, the B-P interrupt system was also
indepent side-to-side, so even if one set of guns was interrupted due to position, the other would
still be active.  Agree on the unpleasant effect on  the pilot. BTW the CC synchronization gear used
by the Brits from 1917 on was not strictly mechanical, it used sonic pulses in a liquid medium to
actuate the firing interrupt. Moving the pilot aft would probably have made the aircraft less effective
as a fighter, as the visibility from the forward position position was one of the things the pilots
truly liked about the Defiant and saw as an advantage.

[upnorth]

Another "wrong" that could be righted would be to give the Shorts Stirling a decent wingspan.

[RussC]

For the Horten 229 - make the pneumatic sources on both engines (avoid test crash) and stick to Jumo's to avoid all the redesigns.

For the YB-49 - Start with fresh paper and draw a new plane versus cram jets into a XB-35 airframe. Also get a good lobbying team to work congress...

For the AW - 52 - new aerofoil section to get more stability.

Because if the task was done right, we should have way more flying wings now than just 23 overpriced examples at Whiteman AFB. 

[Rickshaw]

Another "wrong" that could be righted would be to give the Shorts Stirling a decent wingspan.

Well, with the new, upcoming Italeri kit, you have a chance to do exactly that ! 

The reason why I suggested moving the pilot aft was to preserve the balance with the new guns and their ammunition, putting them as close as possible to the CoG.  I suspect if we were to put some wing guns on the Defiant we'd need to move the fuel to the fuselage as well.  Speaking of cannons, I understand the Hispano-Suiza ones weren't very amenable to synchronisation.  Does anybody know for sure?

[Volkodav]

Discovering and acting on the Lockheed bribes related to the sale of the Starfighter to a number of NATO nations before the aircraft were produced, permitting a recompetition where an actually useful aircraft could win on merit.

[M.A.D]

I know the TF30 engine caused all kinds of problems for the F-14 Tomcat in it's early career.

I say the worst and detrimental thing the USN was to not pursue the Pratt & Whitney F401-PW-400 (USN) engines. The Navy would cut back and later cancel its order, choosing to continue to use the Pratt & Whitney TF30 engine from the F-111 in its F-14.
Why because the F401 was in essence a nasalized adoption of the USAF's F100-PW-100! Sad and pathetic 
There is no doubt in my mind that the F401-PW-400 would have made the F-14 Tomcat!

M.A.D 

[M.A.D]

Another "wrong" that could be righted would be to give the Shorts Stirling a decent wingspan.

Agree 100%

M.A.D

[M.A.D]

Discovering and acting on the Lockheed bribes related to the sale of the Starfighter to a number of NATO nations before the aircraft were produced, permitting a recompetition where an actually useful aircraft could win on merit.

Yes yes!
Right the wrong here, and the West German Luftwaffe and JSDF would be operating Grumman F11F-1F Super Tigers
(Has anyone done profile drawings of this?? hint hint )
Then Grumman might have finally broken into the land-based fighter realm..........more air forces would by the Super Tiger .......... and Grumman expands on the land-based fighter market, which takes it away of needing total support of USN purchases ................... Grumman doesn't do bankrupt.............. Grumman stays viable and does not get absorbed by Northrop!!

Or we might see more Dassault Mirage sales to NATO air forces?
Or even better Saab Draken sales!!
 
M.A.D

[elmayerle]

I know the TF30 engine caused all kinds of problems for the F-14 Tomcat in it's early career.

I say the worst and detrimental thing the USN was to not pursue the Pratt & Whitney F401-PW-400 (USN) engines. The Navy would cut back and later cancel its order, choosing to continue to use the Pratt & Whitney TF30 engine from the F-111 in its F-14.
Why because the F401 was in essence a nasalized adoption of the USAF's F100-PW-100! Sad and pathetic 
There is no doubt in my mind that the F401-PW-400 would have made the F-14 Tomcat!

The cancellation was by act of Congress, specifically a "crusade" led by the Hon. (sic) Les Aspin of Wisconsin who later criticized the Navy on the F-14, after a number of TF30-related crashes, of "buying a Turkey, not a Tomcat" and, of course, neglecting his role in neutering that fine design for so long.  That he went on to become William jefferson Clintons first SecDef is a definite crime and shame. At the very least, an afterburnging TF41 (Allison/RR had already demonstrated adequate capability in 1967) should have been pursued after cancelliing the F401.  Note, the F401 was more than just a navalized F100, it had a larger fan and greater power.  A fully developed F401 to the same tech as the latest F100 variants would probably deliver 35,000 lbt in full burner.  I should note, in an effort to be fair to Rep. Aspin, that the F401 didn't help its case when, within a week, two of the were brought back from the test stands at P&W-Florida in bushel baskets.  I know because I was there and the cancellation of the F401 got me laid off from there. 

Sheesh, over 35 years later and it's still a sore point with me.

[Kerick]

Don't get me started on Les Aspin......
The other factor is which engine was being made in which Congressmen's district....

[upnorth]

Discovering and acting on the Lockheed bribes related to the sale of the Starfighter to a number of NATO nations before the aircraft were produced, permitting a recompetition where an actually useful aircraft could win on merit.

Yes yes!
Right the wrong here, and the West German Luftwaffe and JSDF would be operating Grumman F11F-1F Super Tigers
(Has anyone done profile drawings of this?? hint hint )
Then Grumman might have finally broken into the land-based fighter realm..........more air forces would by the Super Tiger .......... and Grumman expands on the land-based fighter market, which takes it away of needing total support of USN purchases ................... Grumman doesn't do bankrupt.............. Grumman stays viable and does not get absorbed by Northrop!!

Or we might see more Dassault Mirage sales to NATO air forces?
Or even better Saab Draken sales!!
 
M.A.D

I have a feeling the Mirage F.1 might have got the nod for F-104 alternate in a few places in such circumstances.

Both were initially designed as interceptors, but flexed to strike and reccon roles with little trouble.

[Weaver]

Reduce the size of the Tornado's Fin.   

 

What, and lose 440kg of fuel? 

My understanding is that the fin tank usually is left empty on Tornadoes at all times. I think I read somewhere that it caused big centre of gravity and balance shifts both in the air and on the ground when the wings were swept back and the fin tank had anything in it.

Correct about the CofG issues: a Tonka would tip onto it's tail if parked with the wings back and the fin tank full. However, in the course of finding that 440kg figure, I ended up on pprune and the discussion amongst ex and current Tornado pilots there certainly gave me the impression that it was used quite a lot. Apparently it held just enough fuel to get a heavy GR.1 from brakes off to gear up using afterburner on a short runway, which was very handy at unspecified times.

Amusing sideline: the fin tank doesn't have a meter, just red and green lights for "Fin E" (fin tank empty) and "Fin F" (fin tank full). This has lead to "Fin F" becoming a euphamism amongst Tornado crew for having a skin full of beer.....