Originally posted by Nermal
They did remove the Defiants turret – turned it into a target tug. Suspect that the Spitfire and the Hurricane were much better at their job without the major redesign needed to fix guns to the Defiant…
Its big selling point was the turret!

The German prototypes were all referred to by the ‘V’ desination – V1 was the first prototype, V2 the second, etc. Might have something to do with prototype being something in German beginning with ‘V’? – Nermal

Nermal

Yep, I knew about the V designation – it was common for all German prototypes – I think the German word was “Versuchs” (not sure but I think it means “experimental” or “research”)

There were reports that the He-100D was used in combat but the small number produced were divided up as follows:

6 to the Soviet Union
3 to Japan ( and look at the similarity with the Kawasaki Ki 61)
12 were retained as a Rostock defence unit but were publicised by Goebel’s propaganda machine in such a way to convince Britain that there was a fighter in large scale production called the He-113. In 1939, the V3 prototype flew at 463.92 mph!

With regard to the removal of the Defiant’s turret, I knew they removed them to create the target tug – an Airfix magazine many years ago had an article to convert the Airfix kit into one. The problems with the Defiant principally arose from the additional weight of the turret, which was quite substantial, and the increased drag it created. Removal of both would undoubtedly have improved the performance substantially and I can’t think that installation of wing armament would have been all that difficult – the Defiant had a reasonably thick wing with a wide chord so you would assume there would have been the room to install guns.

Just as a further thought, how would the Defiant have looked if the turret removal was accompanied by a similar redesign to the fuselage as other high-backed aircraft underwent, and a bubble canopy installed? I reckon she would have made a reasonably potent fighter.

Regards

Wombat

That’s the one

Guys

Both the line drawings and the beaut picture are correct. To quote my reference regarding this design:

“There were two proposals for the intake. : 1) intakes on either side of the fuselage,, 2) annular , around the entrire aft fuselage section. This latter variant had a V tail.

P1111 Ein-TL- Jager (One/Single ? Fighter – my interpretation) Belatedly submitted (early 1945) to OKL for fighter competition. Alternative proposal to P1110. Tailless aircraft with span of 9.16m, Wing sweep was 45 degrees. Calculated speed was 995 km/h, empty weight 2740 kg, take off weight kg, armament 4 x MK 108.”

To look at the simple line drawings, one can see the development of the 1110 design in the 1111. I would attach the pictures if I had a scanner.

The point is also made that the Meteor actually attained 616 mph and held the speed record for a while, which is quite correct. That shows the potential of the Meteor which, when first issued to squadrons, was barely capable of matching the later mark Spitfires and Tempests, at around 420 mph tops. I think it was a Mark VIII which attained the speed record in 1946? This tends to support my original question – if the “barn door” Meatbox could attain those speeds with its poor aerodynamics, what might the 262 have achieved with similar development?

JDK

I’m glad that we do agree on this issue. I don’t really dislike the Buchon – my issue is with the aesthetics of the engine transplant and the fact that everybody who has one wants to paint it to represent something it was not. It’s true that, if we had no Buchons, we would have no “109’s”, but it just aint the real thing.

Regards

Wombat;) 😉 😉