..thanks for sharing those, I always though the Defiant could, aesthetically,have been a fine looking aircraft if it hadn’t been lumbered with the turret..was there ever a variant proposed without the turret.??

Well, as it happens I have recently met a relation of one of the Defiants designers. According to information passed down to him, the Defiant WAS originally conceived as a ground attack aircraft, as per the Sturmovik and Stuka. This is why it was so strongly built, and provision was armour around the pilot.

The RAF/Ministry didn’t like this idea (at the proposal stage) and so the design was modified to include a turret, in response to a new requirement, and to achieve some production aircraft sales.

This designer was always upset by the fact the type was seen as outdated, obselete, and outmoded, because as originally concieved it would have been a great asset.

*According to the official paperwork, the aircraft had an engine failure after take off. When trying to jettison the long range fuel tanks, only one fell off. In addition the RAFLO report said “landed Keflavik without further damage”. I have in my possession a photograph of the aircraft at it´s final resting place where, lo and behold, both drop tanks are in place AND the prop visible in the picture has damage to one blade that might have been caused by by a taxiing accident with the engines at very low power.
The presence of both drop tanks is a mystery, as they would certainly NOT have been available on stock at Keflavik. To me that would indicate that the second drop tank was transported over there to fly the aircraft back. Unless, of course, there is not a word correct in the history of the aircraft, and it landed with both tanks still attached. What do you think?

Hi Galdri,
Having seen the photo of this aircraft you refer too, I see that only 1 of the prop blades is actually damaged (the one closest to the ground). If this photo was taken after it had been towed across town, I think it likely that this blade was damaged during towing, as it is bent backwards. A blade bent while the engine is turning would bend forwards.

I have Professor Karl Nickel’s excellent book on flying wings, that includes lots and lots of mathematical formulae applied to flying wings by the Horton brothers. Before the days of auto-pilot stability software, they tried to build-in stability into these wings by strict control of the CG + Centre of lift position in all flight regimes, which is very difficult to achieve in practice.

I personally don’t believe making the Ho229 invisible to radar was the prime choice of using wood in its construction. Their entire series of flying wing gliders were made of wood, and by the time this was under development resources of aluminium were harder to come by. There are enough examples of other aluminium parts on standard aircraft being reproduced in wood to justify this too.

For a prototype aircraft such as the Ho229, making it in wood was the perfect choice, as specialist tooling required would have been minimal compared with a large aluminium airframe works.

Because of their inherent stability problems, they are subject to SPPO (short period pitching oscillations) and phugoid oscillations too. A composits wooden structure, may well have been more forgiving than a metal one?

It would have been easier to modify, or alter a wooden wing too. Imagine you have wool tufted an area of wing that you suspect the airflow to be turbulent, or breaking away from. On wood, it could be simpler to quickly bond on more wood, or sand away accordingly.

As with all these late war types, there will always be a lot of “what if” questions, but just remember that the US and UK too had a myriad of very advanced types at similar stages of development, that actually had flight durable jet engines!

Calm down DC, ’tis merely a passing whimsy. I’ve taken the medication and normal service has been resumed! 🙂

Thank goodness….. I thought we’d lost you for a minute there! :rolleyes:

Count me in! 😀

Hi Andy,

If you still have this Miles grip, I know of a gentleman with a Miles cockpit who would be very interested in its un-modified form. Do you have any photos please?

cheers, David

Speaking to some personnel at the unit not long ago revealed that it was starting to suffer somewhat .

It has been since the 80’s! From the elements and “tinkering”.

It has seen lots of attention over the years from people with the best of intentions, who dismantle stuff only for it to be damaged in the process. There had been a lot of drilling out of panel access screws, but leaving the threaded portion in the captive nut. Once the panels were removed, some bright spark at one point simply cut down some countersink screw heads, and then when replacing the panels simply glued them back in the holes!

As it usual with Meteors though, the main spars in the U/C bays where the dissimilar metals join each other (ali and steel) there is some corrosion.

It has been kept clean and tidy, with an attempt to repaint it, but unfortunately in inaccurate RAF markings.

Apart from the missing engines, it is very complete though, with all the cockpit fittings, seats, controls present.

If the RAF put a good restoration team on this, I’m sure it will be a fine looking gate guard at Leconfield.

Aiming too high?

I fully agree with Pure Lightning’s initial posting on this thread, and much as I’d like to see the likes of a Lightning fly again, where are all of the airworthy Meteors??? There are spares around for Meteors, and a couple of airframes that are restorable. I know in the UK we have the NF.11, and will soon have a T.7 but I’d love to think this could be expanded on in the future. Surely operating one of these would be cheaper than a Hunter or Bucc???

Also, much as I love de Havilland Vampires, I am aware that their pod centre spars typically have a limited life of (was it ~200hrs Bruce??).