While I freely admit that apart from the obvious generalities I know little about Defiants so I am not trying to inflame anything. However I just find the story strange.

Firstly, the effect of four MGs firing like that just behind the pilot and at the angle suggested would seem to me to have resulted in slightly more than punctured sleeves. I suspect that some pretty serious hearing damage might have been done.

Secondly, did the Defiant have interruptor gear for the propellor or was it that at a certain point as the guns traversed they simply stopped firing so that the arc of the propellor was avoided. In regard to my first query this might be the case – muzzle blast damage to the canopy perspex seems a real possibility not to mention the hearing damage. Most aircraft with guns mounted to fire parallel to structural components have either strengthened blast tubes, troughs etc, or the structure has thickened skin in those sections – perspex is not very strong. And the Defiant had a light retractable top to the rear canopy section to allow the traverse above the arc of the propellor.

Thirdly, interruptor gear to allow 4 MGs to fire through the propellor arc would have resulted in a rather serious loss of hitting power. I could be wrong but AFAIK the maximum number of MGs thus mounted was two e.g. Me109s.

Fourthly, if there was no interruptor gear I would imagine that a blast from 4MGs would have caused quite serious damage to at least a couple of the blades.

Lastly, I wonder if the guns went off at the top of the arc of traverse thus missing the prop, but allowing the pilot to spin a good yarn. I note that the forward position where they are parallel to the cockpit sides seems from what I have read here was just a take off setting for the safety and ease of the gunner.

Just thoughts you understand – it seems like a good story but …

Oh well – one rarely sees either the C or D schemes, so perhaps one wing is a start.

:rolleyes:

It’s OK – they missed the data plate.

Did you know that the Handley-Page V/1500 had folding wings?

That was the carrier version.

Having read the proposal a number of times, I think there is a missinterpretation of whats being suggested here.
Within a museum context an ‘artifact’ is any item in the collection which is ‘inert’ or otherwise static. As such there are guidelines and proceedures as to how the object is handled and treated from a conservation and preservation perspective, ie originality, making any repairs ‘noticable’ so that they can be distinguished as a change to the object etc. These apply regardless of it being an aircraft, an flint arrow head or a piece of medieval armour ( as examples)
Clearly some of these are incompatable with the safe operation of a working aircraft and if its flying then the relevant maintenance and flight safety rules overide these. By classifying the aircraft as not an artifact, but governed by maintenance proceedures etc, it sets them out a seperate from but still included within a museum enviroment.

Whilst not wishing to provoke a seperate often trailed debate, from a ‘museum artifact’ perspective many flying spitfires fail from an originality or worth as a referance source since so much of it is ‘new build’ and hence cannot be used by researchers looking for authentic reference material. They do however obviuosly still have a significance and worth from a public access perspective and are still worthwhile exhibits in their own right, falling into the second category of the proposed policy.

I would agree with that interpretation, simply because in museum speak an artefact is something in its original condition or at the least in the condition it was when it was acquired.

A flying example needs to be maintained in the condition necessary to meet current regulations which will over time change and therefore require certain changes to be made to the as acquired original. Because the definition makes a separation it does not necessarily mean that the flying exhibit would receive less care, only that that care will be both of a different type to simple conservation, and over time change the object from its original state.

Therefore it ceases to be an original artefact – but then depending on the type and rarity of the aircraft or artefact a museum should necessarily decide whether the aircraft or artefact should be risked in operation. We shudder at the loss of a Spitfire, however there are many total rebuilds available but if the sole remaining Defiant was returned to flight and was destroyed in an accident the loss would in historic terms be far greater.

What is it with Aussies & conspiracy theories? This isn’t just about aircraft, it crops up on almost any forum, covering any topic.

Aaaaaarggghhhhh !!!!!!!!!!! I’d tell you but you would think I was paranoid.

😮

A very good work, well worth buying.

To be the devil’s advocate is it likely that a prominant member of the British House of Lords would have lent his name to this if it was purely a fairytale?

Hmmmm …….. members of the House of Lords have over many centuries lent their names to some very eccentric enterprises :dev2: