The Defiant's Failed Successor | Boulton-Paul P.92 [Aircraft Overview #93]
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 3 มี.ค. 2023
- Today we take a look at the Boulton-Paul P.92. This was an attempt at building a more powerful version of the "turret fighter".
Want to join the community? Visit our Discord - / discord
Want to support the channel? I have a Patreon here - / rexshangar
Sources:
Brew.A (1993), Boulton Paul Aircraft Since 1915.
Butler.T (2004), British Secret Projects: Fighters & Bombers 1935-1950. - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
![The British Bomber That Looked Utterly Ridiculous | Handley Page Heyford [Aircraft Overview #91]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/A4tr_INSnjk/mqdefault.jpg)
![The British Bomber That Looked Utterly Ridiculous | Handley Page Heyford [Aircraft Overview #91]](/img/tr.png)
![The Polish-Built Hero Of Eastern Europe | PZL.24 [Aircraft Overview #94]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/qM141DqhBJw/mqdefault.jpg)
![The Night Fighter That Couldn’t Catch Its Prey | Boulton Paul P.31 Bittern [Aircraft Overview #62]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/8AHdiqO7KN8/mqdefault.jpg)
![ภาพนี้ก็ฮาเหมือนกันนะเนี้ย #1 SS8 [ พากย์นรก MEME.EXE ] | easy boy](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Ytc50m91QK8/mqdefault.jpg)
F.A.Q Section
Q: Do you take aircraft requests?
A: I have a list of aircraft I plan to cover, but feel free to add to it with suggestions:)
Q: Why do you use imperial measurements for some videos, and metric for others?
A: I do this based on country of manufacture. Imperial measurements for Britain and the U.S, metric for the rest of the world, but I include text in my videos that convert it for both.
Q: Will you include video footage in your videos, or just photos?
A: Video footage is very expensive to licence, if I can find footage in the public domain I will try to use it, but a lot of it is hoarded by licencing studies (British Pathe, Periscope films etc). In the future I may be able to afford clips :)
Q: Why do you sometimes feature images/screenshots from flight simulators?
A: Sometimes there are not a lot of photos available for certain aircraft, so I substitute this with digital images that are as accurate as possible.
Excuse me but could you please make a video on the V-Bombers🇬🇧 would make me very happy as a British man who loves aircraft and knows that a Handley page Victor is the largest aircraft to ever go supersonic 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧.
@@aabumble9954 Definitely planning to cover the V-Bombers in detail :)
You make some amazing content! Could you possibly make a video on the VL myrsky?
Valtion Lentokonetehdas (national aircraft factory) , simply VL, was a Finnish aircraft manufacturer, the myrsky - storm, was the only mass produced Finnish fighter aircraft, it was quite successful during the winter war. VL also produced some biplanes, mainly for the purpose of being trainer aircraft, some of them serving as trainers well into the jet era, until the 60s
@@RexsHangar I can't remember all of the planes you covered but could you do one on the Lancaster brother the Manchester.
Thanks for the ❤️ and also say how rubbish the Vickers valiant was at low altitude 🇬🇧.
Always loved the look of the P-61 BlackWidow.
It looks like it could fit into Star Wars with almost no alterations.
@@GaldirEonai It is in Star Wars
@@user-do5zk6jh1k The Y Wing
@@germancaro8999 No. The ARC-170
@Aqua Fyre Project A-ko fired missiles that were Pepsi cans at a parody of a star destroyer (a year before Spaceballs even, also captained by a parody of Harlock). So I would say that anything is fair play here.
"Specialized high explosive bombs to be used against bombers"
*Japanese naval air service takes notes*
🤣
It was a very common idea tried by pretty much all air forces at the time
@William Bonney Yes, I understand that the Luftwaffe tried that tactic and they gave it us as a lost cause. 😎 🌟
Ah, the type 99 fragmentation incendiary "Anti-Aircraft" bomb comes to mind
It's easy to see turret fighters as a strange dead end in military aviation history, but the turret was there ready to go for the new bombers. Without the highly developed turret technology already available, bomber defence may have been a much bigger problem than it already was.
If I'm not mistaken, the Wellington already had a powered tail turret
If they dropped all armament and had well sited observers they might have had fewer night bombing losses from being faster and higher and so being significantly harder to intercept.
Bomber gun turrets were just an excuse to stuff even more men into already dangerous designs to be murdered. The Lancaster didn't even have a gunner in the one place it was needed, the rear ventral position. Which is why it was a sitting duck for night fighters. The fact it was also near impossible to bail out of was icing on the murder cake.
@@givenfirstnamefamilyfirstn3935 you are absolutely correct.
@@papalegba6796 The fact that "night fighters" were just a wish when this DAYLIGHT bomber was designed didn't affect the decisions at all, I'm sure.
Murdered ?
Really?
Actually, the bombers were supposed to get through without getting shot down. Duh.
Now the Beaufighter fitted with a turret makes a bit more sense to me. Not that the result was ever likely to work the way the Air Ministry wanted, but at least that Beau does not look like such an outlying oddity.
The installation of 4 Hispano cannons right alongside the gunner reminds me of one of the stories in John "Bob" Braham's book "Scramble". In it he told of one night a Hisso gun exploded when he pressed the "fire" button. That was a bad night and a fair bit of fuselage damage in a Beaufighter, but it would be deadly for the gunner in this design.
Silence Heretic ! The Defiant will succeed wildly and all other planes will be cancelled in favour of the new super fighter ! Right ?
Hello ? Anyone ?
@@chpet1655 Well said, comrade "turreted fighters" rule Ok ... brother ..
When the RAF tried to up gun their 0.303 turrets in an experiment to 0.5's, the recoil caused the guns to bury themselves in the poor gunner chest.
You really should've named this video "This turretfighter was CRAZY", that wouldn't just be clickbait, it'd be the truth. So glad I watched this.
The idea was crazy, although the half-scale prototype apparently wasn't too bad. As no full-scale aircraft was built, prototype or otherwise, your suggestion for the title doesn't make much sense.
@Mr Pug Even if it had entered service and been succesful it would've been quite a crazy design with that massive turret with 4 20mm HS guns.
Hell yeah a new video to start my 13 hour shift Thanks
13 HOURS?! Damn, goodluck
I think the air ministry was potentially on to something here - the Germans demonstrated the value of oblique fire with their Schraege Musik installations and what is this if not an aircraft purposed designed for that form of attack (with twice the oblique firepower into the bargain). In theory it would have made a fantastic night fighter - so long as radar could be fitted in the airframe. Considering the cramped proportions of the cockpit area, I have my doubts that radar could easily have been accommodated, but there was at least space for a navigator who could have been given the task of operating the set.
It obviously didn’t as none were built or researched .
I dont know. the whole "you cant escape the plane without getting blended" might have been too much of an issue even for the RAF. mounting some Schraege musik style cannons could have been fitted to just about any twin engine plane and youd have the same results.
like the beaufighter for instance.
What part of "in theory..." do you not understand about Matt Bowden's reasonable comments?
@@38dragoon38 you could add "in theory" to anything to say whatever you want. In theory what you are saying is justified but i dont believe im being unreasonable. using that air frame was deemed to be unsafe to pilots by the RAF which generally didnt care too much about such things.
There was a cheesy but fun arcade air combat game called Heroes Over Europe that came out in 09. One thing I always remember about it is that you could unlock the P-61, which came complete with its turret working independently from the pilots guns. You could just fly around letting that quad turret rip enemy planes to shreds automatically. It has always made me wonder about how turret fighters (or planes such as the P-61 which had the capability of essentially being turret fighters if they wanted to) with late war tech would have done if the war had continued as well as how they would have functioned had the tech been up in the air sooner.
addendum: The game Heroes Over Europe is average as far as gameplay goes (it is competent, functional and in working order though nothing special), but has a rather entertaining campaign due to excellent voice acting. Worth playing if you like that style of game.
I forget his name but there was a test pilot who flew the P-61s and to show that the plane was very maneuverable and how effective the turret was, he would fly against 4 Skyraiders and even Tigercats. With his knowledge of the plane and flight capabilities, he would put the P-61 in place for turret kills on all 4 fighters without ever getting touched. Remarkable feats. Although not as spectacular, there are plenty of war stories about A-26s maneuvering against opposing BF-109s to give the gunner a kill. The A-26 gun system, like the B-29, allowed one gunner to control both turrets while automating range and lead. When operating properly, the A-26 gunner could engage a target from the high side and maintain a constant stream of fire as it passed to the low side, as the top and bottom turret automatically transferred responsibility at a certain degree to the horizon. Remember, these were analog computers with metal gears, pulleys, and relays!
@@damndirtyrandy7721 everything you wrote is untrue. Honestly, wtf is wrong with you war-geeks?
I read that as 'Herpes Over Europe' -- painful!😯
A twin-engine turret fighter with 20mm cannons seems like a excellent night fighter concept. But a gigantic quad 20mm turret is a bit much. Far more sensible would've been a twin 20mm turret (still should be quite sufficient for downing bombers) and another pair of 20mm in the belly or wing roots, with a wider fuselage so that you can have better crew comfort and safety. Along with more room for adding a radar in the nose.
Don't let this distract you from the fact that the AM thought the .303 was suitable for turret defenses on the Lancaster.
Yes, and for the Handley-Page Halifax, as well...at least, in theory!😉
In reality, not even the four .303 Vickers guns of the tail turret possessed sufficient punch to be effective against bf-110 and Ju 88 nightfighters. The .303 round couldn't penetrate the thick front panel of the 110's cockpit, and usually wouldn't make it through the enormous mass of equipment and ordnance (radar set, eight guns plus various ammunition trays, boxes and belts) contained in that big, bulbous nose.
In reality, the primary tasks of RAF tailgunners were twofold; first and foremost was keeping a sharp lookout for German nightfighters, followed closely by telling the pilot which way to "corkscrew" to avoid being mauled by an attacking nightfighter. (Spencer Dunmore's novel "Bomb Run" gave readers a chilling glimpse into the tailgunner's role, and their very low survival rate.)
Any tailgunner who failed to call out an approaching nightfighter in time often became the very first casualty, once the nightfighter opened up with multiple 20mm or even 30mm cannons.
Being a Bomber Command tailgunner is definitely not a job I'd have signed up for!😉
No they did not. The UK intended to buy 50s from FN in Belgium. For some reason they became unavailable you know Germans! You also need to realise just how heavy a 50 cal machine gun along with its ammunition is. It takes a lot of effort to start a new factory. The machine tool manufacture was just not possible.
@@womble321 On the contrary, I know exactly how heavy a .50 calibre machinegun is, and how heavy M2 ball is. If the RAF or Air Ministry had really wanted Browning ANM2 machineguns in the late pre-war war/early war period, they would have bought them from the US, not Belgium.
As far as I know, .50 calibre guns weren't installed in British-built aircraft prior to the advent of the Spitfire Mk IXe (the first model equipped with the cropped "C wing," and its revised armament) although some US aircraft they operated came equipped with them.
When examining British war production/acquisition in detail, it appears as though the RAF and Air Ministry placed a *much higher priority* on Vickers and Browning .303 machineguns and HS-404 cannons than they did on .50 calibre ANM2 machineguns, at least up until the Mk IXe Spitfire was introduced.
Hmmm, I wonder why that is?😉
For that matter, one simply has to wonder why Lancaster and Halifax bombers continued using multiple .303 machineguns right through 'till VE Day, despite benefitting from the vast industrial output of their US ally?
The fighter had to shoot down bombers, the bombers only had to shoot down fighters
Its said a little knowledge is a dangerous thing , and this is a case to point.
The top brass at the AM were not fools , they understood that the gunners in RAF bombers at night could only pick out N/F's from a short distance away .A stream of bullets may and usually would deter a N/F pilot and to look for another target.
At the end of the war 0.5's were fitted to tail positions , by that time some bombers had tail radar which increased the likelyhood of a hit.
06:55 - half scale replica but no half scale pilots? I am sure they could have trained up one of the cast of the 1939 Wizard of Oz movie. A few of them were British, you know.
Or a dwarf, high ho, high ho, its off 2 work, wt a turret & a stick....& a piece of string!
The Brits also have a long history of child labor, a 8 yo kid in a cramped and and dangerous job is as British as afternoon tea.
Slippery slope, there friend....US led the world in eugenics, at one time?, (leading in health directives still?)..
I live just down the road from where Boulton Paul was made always great to hear about other planes they made, the factory is now a furniture distribution centre.
I never even knew this plane existed, and I love turret fighters! Like the battle tanks of the sky, but less effective.
I first saw this aircraft design in a "Commando" comic book back in the 60s, thinking .. "WOW! 4 cannons in large turret, plane powered by 2 lawn mower engines ... ?????? " :D I was only 10 at the time .
My mother worked on Defiant turrets during the war and I served my apprenticeship there during the late sixties.
I thought I knew one or two things about Airplanes from my early modeling career, but everytime Rex pulls out another rabbit out of the hat, I know in a very delightfull way that I don‘t! Go on with your excellent work and may it pay off for you!
The P61 is something I would certainly love to see covered!
Me too……!!! 😊
I consider myself a decent airplane nut, and I had never heard of this, awesome channel and thank you for the interesting video.
The fact that they even contemplated housing 4 20mm guns in a single turret makes me think nobody at the time had much experience with that caliber of gun in a warplane. Side note: One of those photos of the Defiant made me think that it shared a lot in common with the IL-2. Change the turret setup to a standard rear gunner position and viola!
The vibration, the noise, the shell casings, the occasional explosive misfire...
@@thefez-cat yes, definitely would have needed rubber mounts and sound deadening material EVERYWHERE !
@@RemusKingOfRome and a .5 inch steel wall between them and the guns...
Wile E. Coyote put glider wings and a needle point on a load of dynamite sticks and dropped them from a sling under a balloon. You can guess how things went. Apparently gliders sound like harmonicas. 🤔
There could have been a RAF unit piloted by persons of restricted growth initially flying the mini Sterlings and later moving on to the mini Victor and Vulcan V bombers. They might have had short range though.
They could've been test pilots for Short.
@@raypurchase801 OMFG.
I see what you did there at the end. ;)
All that for the pathetic pun at the end ?
Bader without his legs ?
I wonder why they didn't go for a .50/12mm BMG style gun? a useful compromise between a machine gun of rifle calibre and a cannon packing a lot more punch than .303 but allowing the carriage of a lot more ammunition than a 20mm?
Hope you feel better soon. Imagine if this aircraft had been successful.
Never heard of this one, looks like a Defiants cooler cousin. Real shame it never got a proper prototype.
Did the designers at Bolton-Paul ever consider adding two or four forward firing .303 mach guns in the wings? If the Defiant had the forward firepower and a more robust engine, it might have been somewhat of a success.
The requirements stated - only guns in a turret ... why ???? ... because !! Roya Air force inter war drug party and cross dressing secret meeting ::D
375 mph with four 20mm seems a tall order in itself to me.
My mother was a riveter on the P61, so I look forward to a video about it. Don't wait too long, however, since I am 81 years old. I would like to enjoy that video while my mental faculties are still working(lol).
5:32 The same method of escape for the pilot was planned for the Ta 154 "Sprengstoffträger" or explosive device carrier...
As a designer at Boulton-Paul I'd have thought conservative and envisioned a Defiant equipped with two 20mm Cannons in the strengthened and (possibly) slightly enlarged turret, two fixed 20mm Cannons in the wings and a Rolls-Royce Griffon Engine. Perhaps with this idea the development of Griffons would not have been temporarily stopped in 1939?
Wondering if half-size Gunners would be available? 🙂
Boulton-Paul did create a version with a single 20mm. Fraser Nash and Bristol both developed twin 20mm turrets during WW2. The wide, flat turret with four cannon was something proposed for multiple British next generation bombers in the period, with also a ventral version. Something similar, although for a 40mm, (cf. COW gun) was trialled on a Wellington.
I was thinking along similar lines for the Defiant, although not upgrading to cannon. I was thinking more about a stronger engine and providing the pilot with four forward 0.303 in machine guns in the wings. I never considered the Defiant a "bad" plane as some do, but the design sorely needed some upgrades
@@roykliffen9674 BP created a prototype with eight forward-firing 303s
@@wbertie2604 wasn't that 12 ?
They tested a Defiant with a single 20 mm cannon but it barely fitted in the turret and the wind resistance was horrific. In other words, the turret was too small. I still think they could have fitted 2 X 50 cal heavy mgs, like a US bomber turret. That would have messed up 109 Es etc.
This video was incredible, great photos for the whole thing, and amazing information
Haven't even watched it yet and I'm thinking to myself "Oh you sweet summer child" when I think of B-P
outstanding video!! Great work sir thank you
Forever thumbs up and support for your great content that has fantastic subtitles/captions
Thank you for another very informative video about an aircraft that I did not even know existed before viewing your video. Keep up the Good Work!
Rest well! I love your work and seriously look forward to every offering. To that end I pray you are able keep on....
I get that feeling ! Cracking video
Rex, thanks for this great vid. It is an example of why you are my favourite aviation channel. On thing I love is that you work with great still images that are 100% relevant, and overlay this with well researched info. Thanks again. ❤
Hi Rex.... if you read this! During the Second World War, Marshal of the RAF Charles Portal said that the single most important piece of airmanship of the entire war for the the UK was not by a RAF or Fleet Air Arm pilot pilot flying a powered aircraft, but by Staff Sergeant Jim Wallwork of the Army's Glider Pilot Regiment who put his glider down just 25 meters from the end of the Bénouville Bridge over the Orne Canal Bridge a few minutes after midnight on the morning of 6 June 1944. He, his co-pilot and the 28 men of the Ox and Bucks Light Infantry were the first men to land on D-Day. Would be great for you to do a video on the Airsead Horsa they landed in and the other gliders of that war. A specific video on this action - Operation Deadstick - would be great to. Oh, and if anyone from the BBC ever reads these - as a follow up to the Rogue Heroes about the public schoolboys of the SAS, a film of Operation Deadstick would have virtually all the main players on the operation being from working class backgrounds.... surely something the BBC should applaud!
Sadly, with the actual PC's madness, I doubt such a story would be ever green lighted, c'mon , a story about all white, straight(so I suppose) men? Where's the inclusivity, the diversity, and most important, no minorities!☹️
Another very good one. How i understand you Rex. Take some rest.
I always enjoy your vids,and look forward to the next.
I really appreciate your presentation and research.
Thanks for ditching the music.
Kind regards Ben.
Ran out of PaperSkies videos and was hungry for more historical and educational aviation videos. You sir are the ConeofArc of Avation videos. Looking forward to more content, keep it up and I'm sure you'll gain keep gaining a good amount of subscribers.
Great channel. 😎
Great video, hope you can rest well now
@Aqua Fyre ahh, the good life :)
What a deal dropping on another Aircraft.....Thanks for the awesome video my friend......
Old Navy Flying Shoe🇺🇸
That quick little bit at 9:40 about airborne radar, that would have been genius for the time. Imagine an AWACS system in the 1940s. No matter how rudimentary it would be, that would have been a HUGE advantage, especially for deep penetration bombing missions.
Defiants were fitted with radar for their night fighter role.
Am really waiting for the P-61 story,it's my favorite WW2 aircraft.
Imagine the F-15 Reporter variant of the P-61, equipped with a single turret, that used the B-29 gunsight and targeting computer, used by Germans to fly parallel of US/UK bomber formations outside effective defensive gunner range and just pick off bombers one by one?
I find that the only truly viable hypothetical scenario for a turret fighter.
Therapist: flying Dunkerque doesn't exist, it can't hurt you.
Flying Dunkerque:
Oh, please do a P-61 video. Always been my favorite twin-engine fighter.
What was up with the British reasoning of either .303 or 20mm and there is nothing in between? They were quite familiar with .50 cal as they used it for AA, but seemed dead set against using it for aircraft of their own design. I would imagine that a much smaller remote controlled turret with 4 .50s aimed by the navigator, rather like the P-61 Black Widow, would have been a better solution.
They did look at 50 calibre turrets prior to WW2 but the reasoning was three fold - the USA gun was much less efficient than a Hispano in terms of aggregate muzzle energy for weight of gun, ammunition, etc.; there was no other viable gun other than the USA one; USA would not grant a local manufscturing licence.
The drawings look like an art deco-era architect was told to design a starfighter
I've had a few weeks where everything goes wrong, so I feel ya bud!
First of all thanks for all your great content. I am not sure if this is the proper way of making a request for a video, but here goes: Fiat G.55 "Centauro". Apparently a more than ordinary capable Italien fighter plane with the let down, that it was very complex to build. I hope you get around to it. Thank you again for a great channel :)
Hilarious video. I enjoyed. 👍😁
The idea of upward firing fixed guns was in the Sopwith Dolphin , a successful fighter of WW1.
The Germans used the strategy of dropping bombs onto the formations of American bombers with mixed results .
Can not wait for the p61video
I loved the autocannon in the Tsetse Mosquito variant, just the thing for low level maritime strafing and sub hunting.
Rex time.
One can never have enough snacks.
Interesting concept
4*20mm cannon... That would ruin anyone's day.
not hispano's at that point of time those bastards had a very nasty habit of jamming within 3 rounds until mid war! the brits had seriously considered dropping the hispano's and developing a version of the orlikon for aircraft use!
especially if you pointed them side on, probably causing the aircraft to spin on it's axis ? :D
Yes the Spanish-French derived gas operated light weight Hispano cannon used by the RAF were exceptionally powerful and reliable guns combining a high rate of fire and high muzzle velocity, America tried to manufacture the excellent weapon but unfortunately only sorted out production difficulties at the end of the war. The Bf109E’s Oerlikons and the Zero’s small Oerlikon derived cannons were both heavy blow back operated guns with low rates of fire and low muzzle velocity.
@@keithmoore5306 they were pretty reliable from the mk. II, 1941 onwards. It was the USA that really had issues.
@@wbertie2604 i heard the brits had jamming problems up until dec 42 /feb 43!
Bolton Paul sure had some crazy aircraft.
I love the weird, obscure stuff. How about a look at the twin Hotspur glider one day?
One of those photos of the Defiant made me think that it shared a lot in common with the IL-2. Change the turret setup to a standard rear gunner position and viola!
Throughout this video, I couldn't help picturing the far more effective De Havilland Mosquito, which in one version mounted four 20mm cannon quite comfortably in its nose. No nonsense about turrets here, as the Mosquito could float like a butterfly, enabling it to point its nose guns where they needed to go so it could sting like a bee.
They proposed a turret fighter version of both Mosquito and Beaufighter. The turrets were... optimistic
@@wbertie2604 Those turrets would have carried .303s, of course. The German Schräge Musik (fixed, angled upwards) was another way to mount cannon...
@@gdutfulkbhh7537 the Beaufighter installation was intended to have 4 303, but they wanted to put cannon into the Mosquito turret, although no such turret existed at the time, the first one to see service being the Bristol B-17 in 1945.
You should check out the Vickers 414 design proposal which was to carry a nose mounted Vickers 40mm cannon and powered by a pair of RR Griffon engines. One was design to fill Air Ministry Specification F.6/39 and had a fixed mounted. A second was fitted with a moveable cannon (with an elevation of 45 degrees, a Depression of 10 degrees and 15 degrees to left and right) was to meet Air Ministry Speicifation F.22/39. The gunner/loader sat besides the pilot and used a predictor fire control to operate the gun. Provided the gunner kept the target in the sight the gun would remain pointing at it. This system was tested on a Wellington (serial no. L4250) but no hits were recorded on the target towed by a Hawker Henley but it was estimated that 50% came within 4 feet of the target. The F.6/39 was dropped from the 1939 by the start if Nowenber 1939. The F.22/39 design by April 1940 was being proposed to have fixed forward firing cannons in a tandem seated fuselage with the gunner facing aft. This version had either 2 40mm cannons or 8 20mm cannons. This new design got a new specification - F.16/40. By January 1941 the number of 20mm cannons was reduced to 6.
Would love to see your analysis of the P-61one of my favourite Airfix kits
cool!
I'm looking forward to a P-61 video.
The more I watch your very informative videos, the more I am astounded at the gross incompetence of the Air Ministry. Did they ever actually employ anyone with any knowledge of aircraft or air warfare? The mind boggles that they actually thought that all fighters and bombers should be armed by 303 calibre machine guns. As a school boy we use to shoot the Lee Enfield 303 rifle and Bren gun. It was obvious to a fourteen year old that the 303 would have been a total pea shooter against metal aircraft. As for the Turret fighter concept, one can only shake one’s head in dismay, that this was actually thought to be a valid idea..One also thinks of the poor young men, expected to go to war in these ungainly contraptions agains very capable enemy aircraft. Thank heavens for the American aircraft in WW2
The P-61 is one of my favorite obscure planes
So, to see the actual flying effects of drag created by having the guns facing outboard and elevated above 45 degrees , they built a 1/2 scale version that didn't include the guns? Am I the only one that sees an issue with this thinking?
Russians solved this by placing a air dam on the opposite side of the turret. Slowed the plane greatly but was balanced.
If you’re ever gonna do a vid on the P-61, you NEED to come over to this side of the pond and see the one that’s under restoration at the Mid-Atlantic Air Museum. It’s in the final stages of restoration to airworthiness
Hahaha "as on the Thunderbirds tv show." We remember it well!😊
THANK YOU ! I'm in your debt !
P61 Black Widow: 4 x forward firing 20mm Canon and a turret with 4 x .50 cals. Not that far off from this bird in concept.
oooh. The P61? That will be an interesting one.
I want the alternate history where Boulton-Paul built everything.
The idea of dropping bombs on the bombers from above would be interesting for the people on the ground dealing with the ones that missed. You would be getting bombed by both sides.
Half scale pilot....brilliant
Don't laugh, but the first F4U Corsairs were equipped to drop air-to-air bomblets onto enemy aircraft. Small windows were placed in the cockpit floor to facilitate this.
I believe the Germans tried dropping bombs on formations too, and also shooting rockets into the formations.
@@SoloRenegade All manner of obscure anti-aircraft weapons were trialled by all sides (including flamethrowers believe it or not), but as far as I know the Corsair was the only operational WW2 aircraft set-up for air-to-air bombing.
@@andrerousseau5730 the Germans definitely tried it.
@@SoloRenegade Can you be more specific? Note that I'm NOT referring to experimental attempts but specifically to operational aircraft, e.g. the Corsair.
@@andrerousseau5730 An operational aircraft used to test an experimental idea: F4U
German Defensive Bombing carried out by: Bf109, FW190, and Me262
You think the germans likewise didn't use operational aircraft to test their experimental ideas?
you're really grasping at straws here.
Regarding the Defiant," I wonder if the designers ever considered installing a larger, more powerful engine, a lighter two gun turret and forward firing cannons?
Well, everyone probably considered a "larger, more powerful engine" but they probably already used the best one available and upgrade when possible....if its that good of a plane to begin with. The only real alternative would be to take engines that are so much larger that they simply arent a viable upgrade option for the top-of-the-line aircraft like Spitfires. Napier Sabre comes to mind, the engine from the Typhoon. But then youd need to enlarge the entire Defiant fuselage to accomodate it and end up with a brand new plane anyway.
Search for the Boulton Paul P-96 ..or is that P 92 ?
Merci .
imagine though, a turret fighter bomber interceptor, with the B-29 turret computer and gunsight?
Being able to parallel (above, below, or co-altitude) a bomber formation outside the bombers' own effective gunner range, and just pick off targets one by one.
There is a 'missing link' to this story, unmentioned in the video, although it may be closely related to the P.92 turreted fighter project. Much closer than Northrop P-61 mentioned at the end. A bizarre, oversized cupola-shaped turret, armed with a single Vickers S 40 mm cannon, was built and flight tested on a single Vickers Wellington Mk.II prototype L4250, dubbed also "MK.VII". It was supposed to be equipped with a computing sight - a 'fire control system' of sorts. Explanations of the purpose of this program seem to differ whether it was an experimental self-defense system intended for large, four-engined bombers, or a heavy punch version of armament intended for the Boulton-Paul P.92 fighter itself.
The German's DID at one point drop bombs on US bomber streams. As described in Heinz Knoke's autobiography "I flew for the Fuhrer".
Whilst a short lived experiment it did apparently have some success.
Great vid! Enjoy your well deserved snacks :)
Could indeed have made an interesting night fighter if it'd been around when radar got small enough. Swap the navigator seat for a radar operator and go have fun.
Could you make a video on the V-Bombers?
One idea prior to the actual start of the blitzkrieg was interesting. Some of the exercises with hurricanes and Spits were demonstrating alarming problems with the turret fighter idea. Some were calling for them to be scraped along with the flying suicide booth known as the Fairey Battle. From this came an idea to remove the turret from the defiant and add a single Vickers K/GO and have the defiant drop bombs instead. It was thought that this would be faster and more manoeuvrable and carry a similar payload to the Battle. Problem was that the removal of the turret was expected to knacker the aerodynamics and centre of G. Interesting idea nevertheless.
I’ll add a citation when I remember where I read this
Great vid. A plane I knew nowt about.
I'm pretty sure the best option to use instead of the Battle would've been the Hawker Henley, before its ill-conceived conversion to a target tug. Its bomb load wouldn't be as large but it was significantly faster than the Battle. That said, with all those Bf 109s over France it still would've suffered heavy losses.
No one expected the Defiant to have to fight BF 109s. No one expected France to fall and the bombing raids on England would have been unescorted.
Of course with hindsight we know it did not work out that way.
But the Defiant was never meant to square off with single seat fighters.
@@kellybreen5526 I see. I know it was expected to rake attacking bombers from below and there was also this idea that came from the Bristol fighter of shooting down enemy planes from behind as they turn (the turret firing ‘forward’ at 2 o’clock or 10 o’clock into the enemy plane as it turns). Was there not expected to be fighter escorts with attacking bombers, then?
I always thought the Defiant was a good turret fighter - it was the concept that was wrong
@@RedXlV Absolutely. Must take a dive into why that didn’t happen. Presumably Hawker were stretched making Hurries.
@@geordiedog1749 Yeah, I would also check out “no allowance shooting”. I think the Defiant was also supposed to use the guns like the Foster mount on the Great War fighters. The pilot of the Defiant did not have a gunsight but could fire the guns.
I suspect this was the tactic they wanted to exploit. Funny the Luftwaffe gets credit for the upward firing guns but the British had the Foster mount in 1915 and that series of COW gun fighters in the 20’s.
Every multi seat fighter had a tough go against single seaters be it the Defiant or the ME 410.
I often thought the Defiant should have been a 2 seat advanced trainer.
Imagine such a turret on a 4-engine bomber 😎
This was intended to be the standard on next generation RAF bombers, dorsal and ventral, 8 20mm cannon total. WW2 intervened, then jet power. Possibly also sanity.
excellent videos :) helping when i down to watch youtube site your
A vickers Wellington had a huge turret like that I'm sure I've seen a picture of it.
Yep 40mm S gun. Same one used for tank tank busting
More canons!
And bigger!
could you also do a video on the Hawker Tornado in the near future?
The theme with this airplane seemed to be "to solve this problem caused by trying to test a solution to another problem"
The Northrop p-61 being an excellent night fighter designed on these specifications also suffered major drag issues with its turret and crews would often lock it into position to prevent handling problems.
It also provided more forward firepower and potentially needing less crew
@Calibanrising has a great video about gun calibres
Actually (according to Caliban Rising) the Defiants battle honours do not make for nearly as grim reading as one might expect.
In the battle over Dunkirk, 264 Sqn apparently shot down 30+ enemy planes in one day .. apparently
@@RemusKingOfRome possibly, I do know the Defiant proved a nasty surprise to unwary Luftwaffe pilots early on. Belly attacks, particularly at night remained effective too of course.
I think the Defiant was one very good looking airplane , this one not so much
I makes me think of The Hunchback of Notre Dame.
It looks just like Quasimodo
Good flying characteristics ! ..with the hunch ! ..but sticking 4 x long barreled cannons out the side, would have been unique and scary event for all on board .. although, the Russians solved a similar problem by putting a small air dam out the back of the turret.
@Aqua Fyre LOL. 🤣🤣🤣
I'm not sure, I kinda like it
I recommend the SNCASE (Sud Est) SE 1210.
Small caliber incendiary bombs to drop on enemy bombers was a fad in the late 1930s. Several fighters were designed with that capability in mind, including the F4U Corsair. As far as I know no nation ever used it in combat though.