Apophenia's Offerings

[apophenia]

I had a further sequence of Paladin spin-offs ... but I think I'm Defianted out for the moment 

Anyway, I'll finish with these... MAP announced that the supply of Spitfire wing panels would cease, effectively ending Paladin production. Pendeford was already aware that this time was coming. Rolls-Royce's 1942 experimental Mustang Mk.X conversion presaged the imminent arrival of longer-ranging Merlin-powered Mustangs from the US. That event would effectively remove any advantages that the Paladin possessed.

With the MAP announcement, JD North and his team had to decide whether to abandon their fighter design altogether or find alternative wing sets. Reviving the original Defiant wing was mooted but quickly rejected. Even requesting details on the Mustang's laminar-flow wing was briefly considered. In the end, however, the basic wing from a rejected shipboard fighter design was resurrected. [1]

Boulton Paul's initial approach to the Admiralty was with the 'Sea Paladin' but this interim 'hooked Paladin' proposal was rejected (the FAA being convinced that long-range fighters should be 2-seaters). Undaunted, JD North et al worked up a fresh shipboard fighter concept. This new carrier fighter design looked very much like the Paladin but had a shortened fuselage, reduced fuel load, and an entirely new wing. That wing was not 'laminar-flow' but took on some of the features of the Mustang - including its wide-track undercarriage. [2]

The new Boulton Paul wing had a single main spar with stiffening mock spars - one on the inboard leading edge, the other just in front of the aileron/flap hinge line. This simplified wing-folding for stowage aboard aircraft carriers. In contrast with the double-fold of the Seafire, BP's 'Pacific' (as Pendeford dubbed it) had pivoting folds to bring the wings aft alongside the rear fuselage. This approach was thought better-suited the low overhead of British aircraft carrier hangar spaces. An entirely new undercarriage was also devised to get around the Seafire's dreaded landing 'bounce'. However, none of these features represented sufficient advantage over the Seafire to tempt the Admiralty.

Redesigning that 'Pacific' wing for use by a land fighter was a comparatively simple exercise. Rather than attempting to compete with the Spitfire, BP targeted the obsolescing Hurricanes being used by the RAF in the South-East Asian Theatre. Construction would be kept as simple and durable as possible. However, this would be a stressed-skin aircraft avoiding the wood and fabric components of the Hurricane as much as possible.

_______________________

[1] John North considered this an interim design pending acceptance of the more advanced P.103 and P.104 naval fighters.

[2] The wings were all dramatically different in planform. Whereas the Mustang had a 'square-cut' look about it, the BP wing was more triangular - referencing the original Defiant tail and rudder shape for its outline.

[GTX_Admin]

 

[GTX_Admin]

Look what I just stumbled across a photo of:

[apophenia]

    It does say should-have-been, doesn't it?

[apophenia]

Okay, I'd sworn off Defiants for a bit. And then Sport25ing posted this:
http://beyondthesprues.com/Forum/index.php?topic=9340.0

So, I think it is only fair that Sport25ing shares in at least part of the blame for the following ...

Sovetskiye Difayentov - The Soviet Defiants

Top Defiant I of the 52nd BAP (Bombardirovshchik aviatsionnogo polka or Bomber Aviation Regiment). When assigned to mixed units like the 52nd BAP, the turret fighters flew as Soprovozhdeniye samoleta (escort aircraft). This aircraft was lost to ground fire in late July 1942 while escorting its Sukhoi Su-2 squadron mates over the Tsentralny district of Stalingrad.

Defiant 'White 29' wears the standard RAF camouflage scheme in which it was delivered to Murmansk. The 'presentation' inscription beneath the cockpit reads: "Ot Rabotnikov Vulvergemtona" ('From the Workers of Wolverhampton'). The tailfin slogan is less formal. It reads (appropriately defiantly): "Ya budu kusat'!" ('I will bite!'). Note that this aircraft lacks underwing stars.

Bottom A Defiant I fitted with a Soviet replacement turret. Operating from Vaenga airfield outside Murmansk, this experimental aircraft appears to have seen prior squadron service - an individual aircraft number has clearly been removed from its fin. For unknown reasons, the original fuselage star has also been overpainted and replaced.

This is a trials aircraft with a manually-operated MV-5 dorsal turret. The MV-5 was no direct replacement for the 4-gunned Boulton Paul Type A power-operated turret. The MV-5 was armed with only a single 7.62 mm ShKas with 900 rounds. It was substantially lighter than the British turret and, most importantly, it was available. As the Soviet Union had already been made aware, stocks of British equipment could no longer be relied upon.

(To be continued ...)

[Sport25ing]

 

Your Welcome 

[GTX_Admin]

As previously commented, it's interesting just how much the Shturmovik (early models) like the Defiant looks without the turret (and some wing guns of course):





Going a step further, perhaps there could be a turreted version of the Il-2 in the works...

[ChernayaAkula]

I've tried a pixelbash of a Shturmovik with a Defiant turret, but IIRC the turret seemed a little wide for the fuselage.
Will have to see whether the profile still exists (on some hard disk drive or other  ).

The Soviet Defiants look great! 

[apophenia]

I've tried a pixelbash of a Shturmovik with a Defiant turret, but IIRC the turret seemed a little wide for the fuselage...

Interesting. Of course, that Type A turret is really a wide for the Defiant fuselage too 

[GTX_Admin]

Well, look here, truth is stranger then fiction: 





In early 1943 a UTK-1 turret (the same type of turret of Il-4s and LI-2s) was trialled.  Despite the good field of fire, the installation was not chosen for production, probably due to the increasing in drag and to the necessity to relocate the fuel tank.

That said, perhaps a whiff version set up[ as a night fighter could be done?

[apophenia]

Well, look here, truth is stranger then fiction...

Very cool! History is indeed stranger than whiffery!

I was playing with the Il-2 with a Boulton Paul Type A. This is crude but shows that it was do-able.

[GTX_Admin]

 

Does anyone know if you can get a 1/48 Soviet UTK-1 turret?  I know it is possible to get one in 1/72.

[apophenia]

Back to the Soviet Defiants ...

Sovetskiye Difayentov - The Soviet Defiants

Britain was quite willing to supply its Soviet ally with equipment in 1941 but demand for Rolls-Royce Merlin engines was outstripping available supplies. With reluctance, the British Air Mission to Moscow informed the Soviet government that current shipments of Boulton-Paul Defiant turret fighters would be the last. Moscow responded to the Head of the BAM that the Soviet Union was happy to accept engineless Defiant airframes. The Soviets could supply their own powerplants.

Top Defiant I(K) experimental aircraft. This Mk.I has been fitted with a Soviet 1,200 hp Klimov M-105PA engines. The origins of this aircraft has been the subject of some debate. However, the yellowish Soviet ALG-1 primer on cowling fittings strongly suggests that this conversion was performed in Russia - Boulton Paul would have almost certainly have applied standard British zinc chromate green primer.

As a 'production' conversion, the Defiant Mk.X(K) had a 1,260 hp Klimov M-105PF engine. [1] This did not imply use of a motor-cannon (for which space was lacking) but rather an attempt to rationalize Soviet engine supplies to the V-VS. The Mk.X(K) was quickly eclipsed by the turretless Mk.XI(K). [2] The latter retained the earlier model's outer wing weapons bay (in which the Soviets mounted a total of 7.62 mm ShKAS machine guns. [3]

Bottom A Defiant Mk.XII(K) representing the third series. For unknown reasons,  this particular aircraft has been fitted with what appears to be LaGG-3 tailwheel.

The Mk.XII(K) introduced a more powerful armament. The previous wing arrangement was reversed - outer fuel tanks being carried, the armaments bay being moved inboard. The Soviet-installed forward-firing armament now consisted of two 20 mm ShVak shell guns. The flexible, rear-firing pair of ShKas gun was replaced by a single 12.7 mm Berezin UBK machine gun. Although none are mounted here, wing racks could be fitted for two FAB 250 bombs or RS-82 unguided rockets.

At one stage, it was planned to fit pod-mounted 37 mm Shpitalny Sh-37 cannons to turreted Defiants. This was cancelled in favour of installing 23 mm Volkov-Yartsev VYa-23 guns in underwing 'pan'yes'. Few such conversions were made due to attrition and most surviving V-VS Defiant Is would be converted into 2-seat trainers.

__________________________

[1] This designation was based on an Air Ministry decision to apply 'X' numbers to Soviet-specific Defiants while reserving lower numbers for potential RAF Defiant developments.

[2] Removing the turret resulted in a dramatic shift in the centre of gravity. The c/g was restored through the rearrangement of equipment and increased armour plate protection for the crew and a new mid-fuselage fuel tank.

[3] Oddly, no attempt was ever made to rationalize the turret armaments with Soviet-calibre weapons.

[GTX_Admin]

 

[GTX_Admin]

Any chance of a Defiant with a UTK-1 turret?

[apophenia]

Sovetskiye Difayentov - The Soviet Defiants

Soviet attempts to replace the Defiant's original turret did not go well. Boulton Paul technicians in Murmansk made an attempt to integrate the bulky Soviet UTK-1 turret. This was applied as a direct replacement for the Boulton Paul Type A turret. The Soviet turret was armed with only one 12.7 mm Berezin UBK machine gun but it was well-protected with armour. Unfortunately, V-VS officials were not impressed with the Boulton Paul installation and the job was passed on to ARM-62, a V-VS repair workshop in Arkhangelsk.

The Arkhangelsk UTK-1 installation was quite different. With field units demanding maximum depression as well as elevation, the turret had to be mounted much higher. Substantial cutouts to the Defiant's upper decking were also needed to gun the gunner the maximum range of movement. The Arkhangelsk depot also opted to adopt the armoured windscreen and canopy from the Ilyushin Il-2 Sturmovik aircraft. This ARM-62 modification was time-consuming to complete but satisfied V-VS requirements while better-protecting the crew. As such, a limited 'production' modification line was initiated at Arkhangelsk.

With their armour protection, the 'series 4' Defiants were very welcome on the Murmansk front at first. However, it soon became obvious that the new turrets had a dramaticly deleterious effect on performance. The 'UTK Defiants' were much slower than their turretless counterparts and general handling suffered. That slower speed made the aircraft more vulnerable to flak, making it very apparent that belly armour protection was lacking. Attrition for the 'UTK Defiants' was high and most surviving crews were happy to be reunited with the turretless 'skinny Defiant'.

That said, the 'UTK Defiants' did their bit defending the Murmansk-Petrozavodsk leg of the Kirov Railway - a vital transit route for lend-lease equipment to the USSR - at a critical time. The turret conversions were quickly ended but the ARM-62 canopy modification was considered a success and was incorporated on the 'series 5' Sovetskiye Difayentov.

[GTX_Admin]

Thank you.

[apophenia]

Okay, compounding failures here. I started off trying to tweak the Blackburn Botha (call me weird, I like its shape!). Gauging the best-case outcome as turning a sow's ear into a hog's ear, I briskly moved on ...

One Botha variation had been mid-winged. That had me wondering if that layout would be better applied to the de Havilland DH.95 airframe. I decided to give it a bash ... but this is as far as I got.

I can't see how this aircraft would have any advantage over the RW Hudson. On top of that, a DH patrol bomber would've used up UK production space that could be put to more strategic use. Oh well, call this one a fail 

[Great-Jimbo]

Okay, compounding failures here. I started off trying to tweak the Blackburn Botha (call me weird, I like its shape!). Gauging the best-case outcome as turning a sow's ear into a hog's ear, I briskly moved on ...

One Botha variation had been mid-winged. That had me wondering if that layout would be better applied to the de Havilland DH.95 airframe. I decided to give it a bash ... but this is as far as I got.

I can't see how this aircraft would have any advantage over the RW Hudson. On top of that, a DH patrol bomber would've used up UK production space that could be put to more strategic use. Oh well, call this one a fail 

There are no Fails ---- only experiments that didn't turn out as expected!!

[apophenia]

No real backstory ... just wondering what a single-seat fighter related to the D4Y1 might look like.

So, here's is the Yokosuka A1Y2 'Yuri' land-based naval interceptor (based on a D4Y2 profile by Vincent Dhorne). I've made the fuselage slightly shorter and much shallower. Wing radiators have been adopter (better ditching characteristics?).

The A1Y2 would be powered by Judy's 1,400 hp Aichi Atsuta AE1P 32 engine. Armament was 2 x synchronized 13 mm Type 2 machine guns with 2 x wing-mounted 20 mm Type 99 cannons.

[Old Wombat]

Looks sleek!

[jcf]

 

Kinda He-112-ish. 

[apophenia]

Thanks folks. A bit more on the WW2 Japanese theme ...
_________________________________________________

With war approaching, the Imperial  Japanese Army Air Force (Rikugun Koku Honbu) began rationalizing its procurement approach in 1939. An early consequence was the abandonment of the disappointing Nakajima Ki-43 fighter prototype. In its place, the Rikugun Koku Honbu chose to adopt a land-based version of the Imperial Japanese Navy's very successful 12-shi Carrier-based Fighter. Nakajima was about to begin building the IJN's A6M2 fighters under a license from Mitsubishi and was instructed to derive an Army fighter directly from that aircraft.

As it happened, Nakajima engineers, Niitake and Tajima, were also developing a float-fighter variant of the Mitsubishi fighter. Work on this 'AS-1 project' float-fighter and the new Army type was combined to simply production. From the AS-1 (later designated A6M2-N), the Army fighter inherited its non-folding wing tips [1] and a shortened tailcone which incorporated the lower rudder. The undercarriage was also revised - with softer main wheel tires and a fixed tailwheel. The new Army fighter also eliminated the A6M's sealed flotation cells in the outer wing panels while, more importantly, adding armour protection (for pilot and fuel tanks). Other changes to the Mitsubishi design were kept to a minimum.

The resulting Army Type 1 (1940) Fighter was designated Ki-53 and named Ōtaka (Goshawk). [2] The first true prototype [3] flew in December 1940, with production deliveries beginning in the Summer of 1941. Such was the urgency for new fighters that the Ki-53-Is were delivered in the same paint scheme as Nakajima-built IJN A6M2-N 'Rufe' float fighters - J2 blue-grey overall with black-grey cowlings and canopy deck.

The Ki-53-I was powered by a 925 hp Nakajima Ha-25 radial engine driving a 3-bladed Sumitomo-Hamilton constant-speed propeller. Armament was twin cowl-mounted 7.7 mm Type 89 machine guns with another pair of 12.7 mm Ho-103 guns in the wings outside the propeller arc. The Ki-53-I Ko introduced the Navy's 320 litre drop tank for the long-range role.

Top  Nakajima Ki-53-I Ko Ōtaka of the 1st Chutai of the 64th Sentai in the Gulf of Thailand, December 1941. (The 64th Sentai was then flying out of Duong Dong airfield on the island of Phú Quốc in the Japanese-occupied Protectorat français du Cambodge.) This aircraft was lost in a head-on encounter with a 27 Sqn RAF Blenheim IF (the IJAAF pilot evidently believing the British aircraft to be a lightly-armed bomber).

One Step Forward, Two Steps Back

As Ki-53 production got into full swing at Nakajima's Ota factory, equipment supply problems began to surface. To accommodate IJN priority for Sumitomo-Hamilton propellers, the constant-speed 3-bladed unit was given up for a two-bladed Sumitomo propeller. The Ha-25 powerplant was tweaked to produce 940 hp but Nakajima was denied immediate access to its own, more powerful Ha-35 variant for the Ki-53. [4] As a result, the Ki-53-I Otsu model had slightly lower performance. To compensate, the armament was changed to four of the lighter, Vickers-type 7.7 mm Type 89 guns. A necessary change, this reduced firepower was an unpopular development with IJA pilots.

Despite its lack of popularity, the Ki-53-I Otsu served successfully throughout the greatest expansion period of the Japanese Empire. The final version of the Ki-53-I was something of a hybrid. It would not be until the end of 1942 that the improved Ki-53-II Ōtaka entered service with their higher-powered Ha-115 engines and heavier armament. The Ki-53-I Hei variant was a Ki-53-I Ko or Otsu model which were, in theory, brought up to Ki-53-II standards. However, in reality, many Ki-53-I Hei models retained their original 7.7 mm Type 89 cowl guns.

Bottom A late-surviving Nakajima Ki-53-I Otsu. This Ōtaka was flown by Kyushiro Ohtake of the 2nd Chutai, 25th Sentai at Hankow, China, November 1943. [5] Sgt Maj Ohtake finally received a replacement Ki-53-II Kai in early 1944.

_____________________________________

[1] More accurately, these non-folding wing tips came from the original Mitsubishi A6M2a Type 0 Model 11 design.

[2] This designations was actually recycled from a short-lived 1939 bombers escort concept (which was replaced by the Ki-49 Donryu-based Ki-58 design).

[3] The first Ki-53 for trials was simply a Nakajima-built A6M2 with its carrier equipment deleted but retaining its other IJN equipment.

[4] The 1,130 hp Ha-35 featured a two-speed supercharger. A revised cowling would be needed and the Ha-35's heavier weight would dictated some fuselage and engine-bearer redesign.

[5] Hankow (Hankou) is now part of Wuhan, the capital of Hubei province.

[GTX_Admin]

Subtle whiff - I like.

[Old Wombat]