B-P Defiant Naval Cannon Fighter

FWIIW, the Wildcat first flew in September 1937 and entered US Services in December 1940 and was designed from scratch as a naval fighter. The Fairey Fulmar, Using the existing P4/34 aircraft as a starting point first flew on 13 January 1937 at Fairey Aviation's Great West Aerodrome. Specification O.8/38 for the Fulmar fighter was issued and an order for 127 production aircraft was placed in mid-1938. Fairey were able to have the first example flying from Ringway near Manchester on 4 January 1940. It entered squadron service with the FAA in September 1940. By using an existing airframe, the P4/34, the development of the Fulmar was much quicker than the norm. The P4/34 was no more or less of a carrier aircraft design than the Defiant. The Boulton and Paul Defiant P.82 prototype (K8310) was rolled out in August 1937 without its turret. The prototype first flew on 11 August 1937. If You take the same time line as the Fulmar and apply it to the Defiant then it is not an unreasonable supposition to suggest that a Naval single seat Defiant could have been available by September 1940, especially as Boulton and Paul had already completed the design study for the P85 naval turret fighter as an alternative to the Blackburn Roc. This adaption is also helped by the design studies already made for the two prototypes of the Bolton and Paul F37/35 to contract no; 556966/36 for but this was later cancelled. There were to design prepared for F37/35, the P88A being a radial engine version and the P88B being a Merlin engined version. With so much preliminary work completed on both a naval version of the Defiant and a four cannon fighter then an amalgamation on the lines used to produce both the Beufighter (Specification F.11/37, First flight 17 July 1939, Introduction 27 July 1940) by Bristols and the Fulmar by Fairey is not an impossible what if time line.
 
sonofpegasus:
"This adaption is also helped by the design studies already made for the two prototypes of the Bolton and Paul F37/35 to contract no; 556966/36 for but this was later cancelled. There were to design prepared for F37/35, the P88A being a radial engine version and the P88B being a Merlin engined version. With so much preliminary work completed on both a naval version of the Defiant and a four cannon fighter then an amalgamation on the lines used to produce both the Beufighter (Specification F.11/37, First flight 17 July 1939, Introduction 27 July 1940) by Bristols and the Fulmar by Fairey is not an impossible what if time line.

Yes, Boulton-Paul competed for the Spec. that was fulfilled by the Whirlwind, two prototypes were ordered from them to cover the alternative designs with different engines.
But, both the P.88a and P.88b were radial engines the 'a' had the Hercules, and the bigger 'b' would be powered by the Vulture - however the treasury didn't provide funding!
 
Yes, Boulton-Paul competed for the Spec. that was fulfilled by the Whirlwind, two prototypes were ordered from them to cover the alternative designs with different engines.
But, both the P.88a and P.88b were radial engines the 'a' had the Hercules, and the bigger 'b' would be powered by the Vulture - however the treasury didn't provide funding!

Thank you for the correction regarding the Vulture being used, though the Vulture was an x format liquid cooled engine rather than a radial. IIRC the Boulton and Paul P88a and P88b were like the Supermarine Type 312 Spitfire and the Hawker Hurricane F37/35 cannon fighter were all cancelled because the AM did not believe that at that time a single engined fighter armed with four 20mm cannon could be built to carry the extra weight and still have adequate performance. wothin two years that opinion had changed but what a lost opertunity!!!!
 
Just for fun, I was reading Colin Sinnott's PhD thesis on the Air Ministry and it mentions that Dowding, in 1934, thought that the Griffon would be just the engine for the Fairey Battle. It wouldn't have hurt the Fulmar either, except cut the range 20%, from way too much to just fine.


I've seen his book 'The RAF and Aircraft Design 1923 to 1939' but not his thesis, is it available online?
 
The Cannon versions of the Hurricane & Spitfire, were not considered in detail because the Ministry wanted them to concentrate on the current versions (+ improvements), rather than be distracted by another design.
Bristol also offered a single engine Hercules powered aircraft - with under-wing gondolas, but the B-P designs were preferred.

Hence, I prefer the scenario whereby the 'b' crashes due to problems with the Vulture, the 'a' handles well but is under-powered. The RAF is still interested but won't order until a better h. p. engine is available. However, the FAA feels that it can cope with the lower max. speed, and is willing to sacrifice the normal 2 seat requirement for a capability jump in fire-power - Blackburn is given the task of navalising the design.
 
I've seen his book 'The RAF and Aircraft Design 1923 to 1939' but not his thesis, is it available online?
His book is based upon his Phd research and is absicaly an expanded version of his thesis. The remark about the Griffon by Sir Hugh Dowding is on page 135. It is worth noting that the griffon of 1935, a devlopement of the R engine was a different design to the griffon of 1938. The Buzzard engine the basis for the R was a scaled up Kestral, IIRC the Griffon of 1938 was basicaly a scaled up Merlin.
 
They asked me if I was finished reading the thesis and I said sure. Then they asked me if I had printed it, and I replied that I have 5 printers, and none work. It is now off-line. You have to buy the book. It is required reading, history-wise, but would eliminate a number of WI theories outright. It doesn't deal with naval aircraft particularly, since naval O/Rs came from the Admiralty. It does mention the Parnall Hendy Hook, an interesting armaments test-bed which illustrates outside the box thinking, if and but nothing else.

The Vulture engine, during Tornado testing, proved totally reliable, but limited in power. In Manchester use, it proved unreliable and not capable or worthy of attempts to increase power.

The early Griffon was different from the later Griffon indeed. All Rolls Royce engines were based on the Curtiss D-12 engines designed by Arthur Nutt, without acknowledgement. The Griffon engine would have required a development process as did the Merlin. The Goshawk engine required a long period of development before it was terminated. The Peregrine/Vulture required development before termination. Development of two engines of different capacities along similar lines isn't that far fetched. Hindsight has shown that the Griffon went far beyond the Vulture. RR had other irons in the fire as well, but they were all melted by jet exhaust.
 
Top