Boulton Paul Defiant... someday flyable?

[343KKT_Kintaro]

 

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

Pretty much limited to night fighting where it had some success engaging bombers from below. Suffered heavy losses on daylight. Nevertheless an interesting plane.

[343KKT_Kintaro]

Sure, Flanker. I'd love TFS makes her flyable, mainly for the pleasure of flying her, even if at some point I'd try a combat flight too.

 

 

[Mysticpuma]

Buzzsaw already said it's not going to happen. A bit like the Walrus. 

Too much effort to create for an aircraft that most would only fly a few times (if ever). 

 

[343KKT_Kintaro]

Sure Puma, no problem. Anyway I must admit that these aircraft are not a priority to TFS. Nor to me. 'Was dreaming only...

[Volant_Eagle]

Personally I don't buy the idea a plane is only worth the work to model if it will perform well. And from a purely financial perspective, if a player buys a plane and flies it 5,000 times, the developers don't make one penny more than if it was only flown once. It just needs to sell.

 

It's definitely true that a particular DLC needs to include good performing planes or it won't sell well. However, that doesn't mean that every plane in a DLC needs to be a good performer. In fact, once you have at least some good performing planes in a DLC, then it's likely even more cost/time effective to add a plane that is novel vs adding yet another good performing plane.

 

There is another point to be made which is specific to the case for making the Defiant. That is we don't actually know it will perform poorly or won't be flown much. Everyone just assumes it would be bad, therefore sims never bother to make it, therefore we've never actually found out if our assumptions are correct or bogus. True, the Defiant's real life combat record wasn't stellar, but it wasn't garbage either. If used properly it actually held it's own pretty well. If not used properly it got chewed up. But you can say that for any aircraft. Use it wrong and things don't go well. The thing with the Defiant is it was such a different and novel idea that nobody knew what the right way to use it would be. Neither its enemies nor those who flew it. Therefore it's short career was a rollercoaster ride of stunning successes and striking defeats while both sides tried to figure out what they should and shouldn't do with this oddball plane. Given its limited use, who's to say the best tactics for this plane were never discovered?

 

I can't think of another plane that would add a more unique twist to the gameplay in this or any WW2 sim than the Defiant. And CloD has to be the one it would most appropriately fit into right now. It probably wouldn't be the greatest to fly alone (either SP or MP with AI gunner), but I can imagine it would be an absolute blast to fly as a crew on comms or via LAN.

 

I do know of one sim which has a flyable Defiant. The Battle of Britain mod for CFS3. Not the easiest to get ahold of since you first need a copy of CFS3. I grew up on the Microsoft sims so I had a copy laying around and I downloaded the mod about 6 months ago. It certainly isn't the most polished mod but it definitely works. I've hardly touched it though since I'd rather play CloD in my free time. I never got around to trying MP with the BoB mod (or CFS3 for that matter) so I don't know if it supports multi-crew for the Defiant. But if it does, I would definitely be up for testing it out with anyone who's able and interested. The Defiant is in fact the very reason I downloaded the mod in the first place. 

 

https://cfs3bob.wixsite.com/cfs3-bob

[343KKT_Kintaro]

In Cliffs of Dover Blitz, the Tiger Moth is one of the planes I've flown the most (for the simple pleasure of flying her), and anyone here would admit she's not the deadliest aircraft in the game... but as Mysticpuma said, the TFS guys won't make the Defiant flyable. Not yet. So I knew what I was doing when I chose the word "someday" for the thread's title. 

 

In the meantime we can have a cosy chat...

 

 

Edited March 13, 2024 by 343KKT_Kintaro
"her" => the Defiant...

[Gunfreak]

3 minutes ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

In Cliffs of Dover Blitz, the Tiger Moth is one of the planes I've flown the most (for the simple pleasure of flying her), and anyone here would admit she's not the deadliest aircraft in the game... but as Mysticpuma said, the TFS guys won't make her flyable. Not yet. So I knew what I was doing when I chose the word "someday" for the thread's title. 

 

In the meantime we can have a cosy chat...

 

 

 

Tiger Moth is lovely to fly. Flying in the shallow valleys of England, landing and taking off from any random plot of land you find.

[Mysticpuma]

10 hours ago, Volant_Eagle said:

Personally I don't buy the idea a plane is only worth the work to model if it will perform well. And from a purely financial perspective, if a player buys a plane and flies it 5,000 times, the developers don't make one penny more than if it was only flown once. It just needs to sell.

But that's the difference between one person buying it and flying it 5000 times, and 5000 people buying it and flying it once.

The Defiant while an intriguing aircraft was hated by the Pilots.

I met Eric Carter who mainly flew Hurricane's and Spitfire's but if things were tight, he had to fly Hurricane's in the day and Defiant's at night. I can't find all the references to his comments, but if you click this link, it takes you to the point where he talks about night flying and explains why he hated the Defiant.

 

 

[major_setback]

18 hours ago, Volant_Eagle said:

Personally I don't buy the idea a plane is only worth the work to model if it will perform well. And from a purely financial perspective, if a player buys a plane and flies it 5,000 times, the developers don't make one penny more than if it was only flown once. It just needs to sell. 

....

 

Even if your only consideration was the number of sales that a new flyable model will generate, you would have to ask yourself which other plane you would sacrifice in order to get it.

I don't think many players would be happy to get a flyable Defiant (for example) if it meant that the P51, Fw190 or B17 didn't get made.

CoD did include a flyable Bf108 in DWT though, so flyables are not always bound to be the glamorous ones.

 

[Volant_Eagle]

4 hours ago, major_setback said:

 

Even if your only consideration was the number of sales that a new flyable model will generate, you would have to ask yourself which other plane you would sacrifice in order to get it.

I don't think many players would be happy to get a flyable Defiant (for example) if it meant that the P51, Fw190 or B17 didn't get made.

CoD did include a flyable Bf108 in DWT though, so flyables are not always bound to be the glamorous ones.

 

That is a fare point. Definitely for the F&FW DLC. The Defiant doesn’t really fit with the context and time period of that DLC. Therefore I can’t imagine swapping it out for any of the aircraft already selected for it. If the Defiant were to be added it would either need to fit with the theme of a DLC, or be a test project for a new modeler like the MS.406.
 

Interestingly we are getting the MS.406 in Dieppe. I find it hard to make much of a contrast in justifying it vs the Defiant. The MS.406 doesn’t fit the theme at all (you could even say it’s farther off), it is bound to be out performed by nearly everything currently in the game, and is likely a similar amount of work to make as the Defiant (true the Defiant has 2 seats, but it’s also already in game as a non-flyable, which may reduce some work). I’m not at all saying I think the MS.406 shouldn’t be getting made, quite the opposite actually. I’m thrilled to one day get behind the controls of it. I’m just saying that if a plane like the MS.406 could be thrown in randomly with a DLC under the right circumstances, then there’s just as much reason it could one day happen with the Defiant. I understand there’s a slim chance of that happening though. Especially since there’s plenty of other equally if not more interesting oddball planes to pick from in such a case.
 

As far a making it an intentional part of a DLC, the Defiant could have fit well with the 6.5 theme of night combat in 1940-1942. However, that’s a small update and probably too soon around the corner for another aircraft to be added given the lead times. The Defiant definitely doesn’t fit with the themes of 7.0, 8.0, or 9.0. So if it ever does get made it will either be a long way out, or as a side project. It would only fit with the Battle of France, a re-visit of the Battle of Britain, or yet another night update. I don’t see any of those even being on TFS’s radar yet. (It seems the Battle of France is currently being pursued as a ‘stealth’ update coming in piece by piece. The Defiant would sorta fit that bill, but priority should definitely go to planes a little more French.)

 

[343KKT_Kintaro]

Yes, Buzzsaw said something like the above, as if they were developping one French aircraft at a time... so that at some point in the future, ideally, there would be enough 1940 French and German flyables for a Battle of France reenactment. Still now we reenact the Battle of France with D.520s only (and the existing 1940 German planes n the game) but if we add a H75 (P-36) and a MS.406... then, yes, we'd have a more "nutricious" planeset for Battle of France scenarios in the game. BUT if I got it correctly, TFS plans to move forward in the timeline, so... from the Battle of Britain onwards, all TFS add-ons would deal with the corresponding battles in all affected periods post-Battle of Britain. Developing a few French aircraft would make that the Dover series would end up by being fitted in a timeline that starts in France May 1940 rather than in Great Britain July 1940. At this point, the D.520 alone is not sufficient enough for such a claim, but it's very nice to have it nevertheless. Other than that, a flyable Defiant would make as much sens as a flyable Walrus (in order to provide a better planeset for the "Blitz" basic game, but the Walrus would be modelled for an ulterior add-on)... or as much sens as French aircraft being modelled progressively add-on after add-on (in order to have at some point in the future encough French flyables for a nicer reenactment  of the Battle of France). At any rate, last comments of TFS about all of this are "no flyable Walrus" and "no flyable Defiant". So... end of story, I guess.

 

 

[major_setback]

TFS have a good history of converting non-flyable aircraft to flyable: Bf 108, Cr42, Gladiator, Wellington, Beaufighter. Anything could be possible, especially if a 3D modeller has a passion for a specific aircraft that they dearly would like to see in the game (apply by PM to Buzzsaw).

[major_setback]

I wonder how many WWII single engine aircraft had turrets. Was it just British planes?

 

Defiant

Roc

Lysander (special version)

 

Any more?

 

(Edit: Su 2, too).

 

 

Edited March 15, 2024 by major_setback

[343KKT_Kintaro]

21 minutes ago, major_setback said:

Any more?

 

 

No idea!

 

 

21 minutes ago, major_setback said:

(Edit: Su 2, too)

 

 

Not British! ?

 

Sukhoi Su-2 - Wikipedia

 

 

 

[AndyJWest]

[major_setback]

A turret put to good use:

 

 

[AndyJWest]

1 hour ago, major_setback said:

A turret put to good use:

 

The sandbags are being put to good use too, hiding some of the ugliness.

[Gunfreak]

Not sure how effective 4 ground placed .303 would be in anti aircraft role. I know for the first couple of years they basically tried anything including using brens to shoot down planes. But I'm thinking the number of planes shot down with ground based rifle caliber guns can't be many.

[AndyJWest]

21 minutes ago, Gunfreak said:

Not sure how effective 4 ground placed .303 would be in anti aircraft role. I know for the first couple of years they basically tried anything including using brens to shoot down planes. But I'm thinking the number of planes shot down with ground based rifle caliber guns can't be many.

 

Generally speaking, LMGs were more effective as a deterrent to low level attack than as an actual weapon. To the extent that they discourage the enemy, they worked. 

[56RAF_Stickz]

20 hours ago, major_setback said:

Defiant

Roc

Lysander (special version)

 

Any more?

 

blackburn skua

[AndyJWest]

9 minutes ago, 56RAF_Stickz said:

 

blackburn skua

 The Skua didn't have a turret.

[56RAF_Stickz]

2 minutes ago, AndyJWest said:

 The Skua didn't have a turret.

my mistake then I thought the rear gunner was in a turret as opposed to a free firing gun

[major_setback]

1 hour ago, 56RAF_Stickz said:

my mistake then I thought the rear gunner was in a turret as opposed to a free firing gun

 

I believe the Roc is the turreted version.

[BOO]

2 minutes ago, major_setback said:

 

I believe the Roc is the turreted version.

Has to be - no way could anyone do that ugly twice...

[Volant_Eagle]

On 3/16/2024 at 10:40 AM, major_setback said:

A turret put to good use:

I would assume that such a setup was for training purposes rather than defense. Probably to familiarize gunners with the use of a powered turret. Although if that’s the case then I’m not sure why the sandbags are necessary. So maybe it was somehow intended for defense? Rifle caliber weapons wouldn’t be that effective from the ground. You’d only have the range to reach someone on a strafing pass. But that could be the very reason the turret was left in the airframe; to make it look like a tempting target for an unsuspecting fighter to strafe. I still would put my money on it being a training aid, but it would be interesting to know the true intent.

 

On 3/16/2024 at 12:11 PM, AndyJWest said:

The sandbags are being put to good use too, hiding some of the ugliness.

 

Personally I kinda like the look of the Skua (I know it’s a Roc in the photo). Not exactly elegant but neither is the Martlet/Wildcat. Kinda has a similar charm to it in my opinion. As a fighter it was absolutely rubbish. But classifying it as a fighter was a ridiculous idea in the first place. As a dive bomber it was actually a very good airplane. Eric “Winkle” Brown flew the Skua in combat and had a similar opinion of it. Perhaps if the FAA had regarded it purely as a dive bomber it wouldn’t have gained such a negative reputation. Less bomb load than a Stuka and couldn’t dive as steep, but the Stuka’s bomb load was above average for dive bombers of the period. And on the other hand the Skua was faster than the Stuka and could operate from carriers. It would be nice to have a dedicated dive bomber for the Red side. In my mind the best options for a Red dive bomber are the Skua and the SBD. Obviously the SBD was the better airplane, but as far as I know it only appeared very briefly in 1942 for operation Torch.

 

On 3/15/2024 at 4:53 PM, major_setback said:

Defiant

Roc

Lysander (special version)

(Edit: Su 2, too).

+ Avenger

 

Seems there’s a few if counting by single engine aircraft. But the Defiant still stands out as the only one in that list intended to be a fighter. And therefore the only one meant to use the turret for offense rather than defense. (Unless the FAA was still somehow going to insist the Roc qualified as a fighter.)

 

If we consider fighters with turrets rather than single engine with turrets:

 

Defiant

P-61

Maybe Me 210/410 (Depending on whether those rear guns can be counted as “turrets”)

 

Any others?

[major_setback]

8 hours ago, Volant_Eagle said:

I would assume that such a setup was for training purposes rather than defense...

 

... I still would put my money on it being a training aid, but it would be interesting to know the true intent.

 

....

 

 

The photograph's origin. I  haven't read the discussion thread myself.

 

 

 

Edited March 18, 2024 by major_setback

[Volant_Eagle]

19 minutes ago, major_setback said:

The photograph's origin. I  haven't read the discussion thread myself.

Thanks! 
 

The title/description of the photo was the only information given in the original post as to the purpose of the aircraft. However I did find this article which at the very end also says that Rocs were used as AA defense in Gosport.

 

https://www.baesystems.com/en/heritage/blackburn-b-25-roc

 

So I guess they really were being used as AA. It also says these positions were continuously manned. That sounds like a miserable job. I wouldn’t be surprised if that sailor peering into the turret was checking to see if he’s still awake/okay. …or inquiring about what that guy did to deserve an assignment like that.

 

On second thought, I think I’d rather have that job than be a gunner in one that was flying!

[major_setback]

Who needs turrets?

https://www.warhistoryonline.com/instant-articles/hedgehog.html

 

[Buffo002]

Excuse me, and would you enjoy piloting a plane that only had guns in the gun turret? You yourself wouldn't be able to fire because the Defiant had no forward firing weapon that the pilot could control, I'd prefer another type of aircraft.

[major_setback]

3 hours ago, Buffo002 said:

Excuse me, and would you enjoy piloting a plane that only had guns in the gun turret? You yourself wouldn't be able to fire because the Defiant had no forward firing weapon that the pilot could control, I'd prefer another type of aircraft.

A fighter plane with a forward firing turret would have been good ... in the nose maybe. Maybe remotely controlled by the pilot. It would save trying to line up a shot by manoeuvring the plane.

[Volant_Eagle]

12 hours ago, Buffo002 said:

Excuse me, and would you enjoy piloting a plane that only had guns in the gun turret? You yourself wouldn't be able to fire because the Defiant had no forward firing weapon that the pilot could control, I'd prefer another type of aircraft.

Completely fair, I think a lot of people would also be disinterested in flying a fighter without guns. However, that’s partly why I think it would be interesting. It would force you to work as a team with your gunner. It would also force you to work as a team with other Defiants. A lone Defiant is (probably) a sitting duck for a single seat fighter even if the pilot and gunner are a good team. However, there were tactics developed by some units which worked well if jumped by fighters. Typically this involved flying in a circle so they could cover each other’s tails. Which is oddly the same tactic that was advised for Hurricanes and P-40’s if jumped by 109’s.

 

You would basically have to form a dedicated squad to make good use of the Defiant. It’s possible some good AI protocols could be made to allow SP to work well, but I have my doubts. There would need to be a good way both to tell your gunner what he should be targeting, and for your gunner to tell you what he wants to target and from what angle. It would also need to be easy to swap between gunner and pilot without the AI doing unexpected crap. I think this would be possible to develop but it would require a lot of thought and testing. Probably not worth TFS’s limited resources right now. Especially considering there’s a chance it can’t be done well and all the work would be for nothing. On the other hand though, even if the Defiant were not to work out as intended, I think the development towards making its AI work properly could be transferred over to every other multi-crew plane in the game. Thus improving the game as a whole.

 

If you had at least 8 people willing to regularly play together then you could have a flight of 4 Defiants. If flown well I believe this could be a rather effective force. You could probably wreck bomber formations and at least hold your own against fighters. I can see the main objection to this being that in the sim world all players are pilots. So 4 Defiants would be equivalent to 8 Spitfires not 4. Why would you fly 4 Defiants when you could fly 8 Spitfires? You could certainly argue 4 Spits are better than 4 Defiants, but 8 Spits would be vastly more effective. I think the answer is because it’s novel. Yes, 8 single seat fighters would be more effective, but in what theater, war, or simulator can’t 8 people do that?

 

The 4 ship flight is just what I think would be needed for day operations. At night you could easily fly as a lone aircraft. Low chance of being caught by a fighter over your own territory at night. The Defiant might not be the best night fighter, but honestly none of the early war night fighters were all that great. I imagine it would be better than a Hurricane or a Spitfire in that role. Two sets of eyes scanning the dark instead of one. The gunner having a near 360 view and not distracted by flying the airplane. And if you do spot a bomber you have more options for attack angles. In the interview of Eric Carter posted above by @Mysticpuma, he doesn’t exactly seem to have a fond memory of night fighting with the Defiant. However, it seems most of his concern was just with having to fly at night in general.

 

Also, technically the pilot can fire the guns in the Defiant. The gunner can point the guns forward at an upward angle over the prop arc. He can then give firing control over to the pilot. The pilot doesn’t have a gunsight but he can use the framing of the canopy for reference. Pilots were actually trained how to aim and fire this way. As far as I know this was never done in combat though. This upwards firing angle could be rather effective against bombers. (Or possibly in a turn fight?)

 

9 hours ago, major_setback said:

A fighter plane with a forward firing turret would have been good ... in the nose maybe. Maybe remotely controlled by the pilot. It would save trying to line up a shot by manoeuvring the plane.

I don’t think it would be practical having the same person both flying the plane and aiming the turret at the same time. However, having guns that could be switched to various pre-set inclinations might be very useful. You could select an upwards angle for a belly attack or in a turn fight. A downwards angle could be useful for strafing.

[BOO]

15 hours ago, major_setback said:

A fighter plane with a forward firing turret would have been good ... in the nose maybe. Maybe remotely controlled by the pilot. It would save trying to line up a shot by manoeuvring the plane.

some ideas really need two coats of thinking about.

[Cybermat47]

16 hours ago, major_setback said:

A fighter plane with a forward firing turret would have been good ... in the nose maybe. Maybe remotely controlled by the pilot. It would save trying to line up a shot by manoeuvring the plane.

They had a few fighters like that in WWI, like the F.E.2b. But AFAIK it was found that fixed weapons were easier to aim.

[BOO]

6 hours ago, Volant_Eagle said:

 

 

I don’t think it would be practical having the same person both flying the plane and aiming the turret at the same time. However, having guns that could be switched to various pre-set inclinations might be very useful. You could select an upwards angle for a belly attack or in a turn fight. A downwards angle could be useful for strafing.

 

A downward angle would likely necessitate taking the aircraft over a lot stuff that, quite understandably, might be inclined to fire back.  At a slower speed and on a more predicable path than a dving run, and with less scope to turn out before flying over target, it would be a fools errand with little or no meaningful adnatage.

 

By 1940, and arguably long before, the "turn fight" was a myth in the real word. As lethality increased, the need to stick on the tail of ones foe decreased as did the chances of getting out unscathed yourself if you did.  If you need a greater AoA temporarily, trim nose up. Making up for something your airframe isnt good at means you're  likely going to run out of any advantage you started with very soon. 

 

Belly attacks work when the belly is unsighted and undefended. Placing an aircraft in a precise poition for such would be suicide against anything but an  RAF type at night in a loose formation (if any formation at all). This is straight and pretty much level flying in the final stages with a slow closure rate that exposed the crew to fire from above and through the perspex of the cockpit. . Never something you'd see against a formation of B17s for instance. Better then to point the dakka dak forward and attack with angle and closing speed unless you have a particular quarry and a niche scenario as the LW had at night.  

 

As you can you tell Im doing ANYTHING to avoid decorating this morning! ?

 

 

Edited March 24, 2024 by BOO

[Buffo002]

I personally would be in favor of the creation of the Fairey Fulmar II, which was a naval fighter and was deployed not only from carriers (aircraft carriers), but also from naval bases on the coast. It had 8 7.7 mm machine guns in the wings. The only drawback was that the navigator did not have a rear gun, they themselves were upset that they could not defend themselves with any rear missile, but it was designed as an airborne fighter that was supposed to shoot down long-range reconnaissance aircraft, bombers, etc. But history proves that they participated in for example the battles for Malta etc.

Edited March 24, 2024 by Buffo002

[Volant_Eagle]

17 hours ago, BOO said:

A downward angle would likely necessitate taking the aircraft over a lot stuff that, quite understandably, might be inclined to fire back.  At a slower speed and on a more predicable path than a dving run, and with less scope to turn out before flying over target, it would be a fools errand with little or no meaningful adnatage.

With a steep angle yes, I would agree with you. That wasn’t what I was thinking though. In my head I was thinking only about 5 degrees down or so. 10 max. The strafing pass would be conducted with exactly the same speed and from a similar angle as when guns are aligned straight with the longitudinal axis. So there wouldn’t be an increased exposure to ground fire (in theory). The problem when guns are aligned straight ahead is you’re always flying directly ant anything you point them to. That can be a problem when the thing you want to shoot is on the ground. There comes a point when you have to decide between getting more rounds on target and not crashing. Admittedly this isn’t as much of a problem for steeper diving attacks. Usually you get a clear enough shot at the target before needing to pull up. However, sometimes strafing needs to be done from near the tree-tops at a very low angle. In this case you only get a moment to lower your guns to the target. That’s because the moment you do, you start descending into the trees. This is the particular scenario where I was thinking a slight downward angle would be useful.

 

There are some Cold War era Soviet gun-pods which allow to selection between straight or angled fire. But these seem to aim down at a much steeper angle than I was thinking (looks like more than 30 degrees). I imagine that would cause issues with exposure to ground fire like you mentioned. Interestingly I found many photos of these pods mounted backwards on jets. No idea how they planned on any sort of aiming with that particular arrangement.

 

17 hours ago, BOO said:

By 1940, and arguably long before, the "turn fight" was a myth in the real word. As lethality increased, the need to stick on the tail of ones foe decreased as did the chances of getting out unscathed yourself if you did.  If you need a greater AoA temporarily, trim nose up. Making up for something your airframe isnt good at means you're  likely going to run out of any advantage you started with very soon. 

In WW1 the notion was the “turn fighter” was the better fighter. That ceased to be true shortly after the war but that way of thinking still hung around into WW2 (especially in the Japanese Army). However, that is a completely different thing than saying the turn fight itself was dying out. Boom & Zoom vs Turn & Burn is always purely relative. That means in every single fight involving dissimilar types there will one pilot who should turn and one pilot who shouldn’t. The 109 is definitely considered a “boom & zoomer”, but that is only because of the planes it was contemporary with. Put a 109 up against an F-86 and the tactics would be completely reversed. The perfect real life example of this is the P-40. The P-40 was middle of the road in speed and good in turn. Against the super nimble Japanese fighters it was suicide to try and turn fight. But against the Germans it was the exact opposite. Turning was often the only advantage a P-40 had against German fighters.

 

Trimming provides nothing aerodynamically different than using the elevators. It just changes where neutral will be on your stick. Holding a little extra back force is much quicker for temporary needs. When you are setting pitch trim you are actually setting what airspeed the airplane will seek. That is why if you dive without adjusting the trim the plane will try to nose up. It is “seeking” the airspeed you were at when you were level and trimmed out. Likewise if you were to instead pitch up into a steep climb and let your airspeed bleed off, the plane will want to pitch down. Same trim setting in both scenarios.

 

I was also thinking a very shallow upward firing angle for the turn fight scenario. The problem with increasing your AoA to get your guns on target is it will necessarily bleed off energy. Another related problem is if both planes are in a turn, the trailing plane is required to pull a tighter turn in order to bring its guns to bear, and therefore will bleed off more energy. If you’re following someone in a turn and tracing their same flight path, you wouldn’t be pulling any more G’s than your opponent, but your gunsight would be well behind them. In order to shoot them you need to get your sight ahead of them. With fixed guns you can only do that by increasing AoA. So either you’ll only be able to do it momentarily, or not at all because likely you’re already near critical AoA in a max performance turn fight. Having the guns fire 10 to 15 degrees above the nose might be useful in that scenario.

Completely agree with your paragraph on belly attacks.

 

That was way too much explaining for a niche theoretical concept. I need a life.

 

[No.54_Reddog]

I suspect more effort has gone into this post than into the Visual Upgrade over the same period.

[Buzzsaw]

On 3/24/2024 at 6:48 PM, Buffo002 said:

I personally would be in favor of the creation of the Fairey Fulmar II, which was a naval fighter and was deployed not only from carriers (aircraft carriers), but also from naval bases on the coast. It had 8 7.7 mm machine guns in the wings. The only drawback was that the navigator did not have a rear gun, they themselves were upset that they could not defend themselves with any rear missile, but it was designed as an airborne fighter that was supposed to shoot down long-range reconnaissance aircraft, bombers, etc. But history proves that they participated in for example the battles for Malta etc.

The Fulmar did play a part in the Mediterranean battles as a carrier borne fighter, but it was one of a number of Fleet Air Arm Fighter types in service.

 

The Martlet Mk III, Gladiator II and Sea Hurricane Ib/Ic were also in combat during the same battles.

 

Yes, we would like to include the Fulmar, but I suspect when offered a choice, most players would pick the Martlet or Sea Hurri.  No guarantees... will see what we can do.  The Blackburn Skua mentioned as well in other posts might be a better choice to give a dive bomber complement to the Swordfish.

 

Richard John Cork was the only FAA pilot to shoot down 5 enemy aircraft in a day...  during Operation Pedestal... he was flying the four cannon armed Sea Hurricane Ic... a Hurri I with tailhook and with the upgraded low alt Merlin III with the cropped supercharger, +16 boost and a FTH at 5000 ft with 1440 hp... compared to the standard 1310 hp for the +12 version... a  real little hotrod at the low alts needed for Carrier CAP.

 

We will include the Sea Hurri IB/IC, Martlet III and Sea Gladiator II as aircraft in the Central Med DLC...  assuming that DLC goes ahead as planned.

[Volant_Eagle]

Personally I’d be just as happy with either the Fulmar or the Skua as I would with the Defiant. Those are both airplanes I’ve been wanting to fly for a while. They’re also both safer options to develop than the Defiant since they’re a little more “normal”. The Defiant might be a great addition that provides a completely different experience that people love . . . or it could be a complete flop. My personal opinion is it would be fun, but that’s just an educated guess. No way to know unless it actually happens someday. Kinda risky.

 

If people enjoy flying the Stuka (and they do), then I can’t see why the Skua wouldn’t be a hit as well. Slightly faster than the Stuka with twice the forward firepower (though 4x .303’s is still anemic). Bomb load is lighter than the Stuka but is on par with many other contemporary dive bombers. Couldn’t dive as steep (I think max was 60 degrees) but that’s not a big issue. Stuka has the fancy auto pull-out but that’s unique to the Stuka. The Skua being able to operate from carriers is a huge bonus. If carriers do get added to the game at some point, I think players will absolutely eat up anything that can operate from them.

 

The Fulmar is equally as interesting to me but it’s a very different story. Like the Defiant, it would be a fighter in a category all to its own. Obviously in a completely different way than the Defiant, but still unique in its own right. The FAA wanted something extremely long range for patrol duties. They assessed they had little chance of facing enemy fighters in the Atlantic so they were fine with making huge performance sacrifices to get that range. Since performance wasn’t a big concern, they doubled down on ruggedness, ease of handling for long flights, and ease of navigation/communication/observation (adding the back seater). All very helpful for the context but further degraded performance.
 

The Fulmar is very slow, has a very poor climb rate, and isn’t very maneuverable (though I imagine turn radius wasn’t bad with the large wing). That makes me think no one would have interest in flying it in MP. It would just be a flying target. However, in SP I think it could really shine. If the navigation, communication, and observation components of its missions were well modeled, I think it would provide a unique way of playing the sim that a lot of people would enjoy.  Complex mission briefings, taking off from a carrier, hours of navigating by only dead reckoning over open seas with no references (likely making use of time acceleration), trying to intercepting a lone bomber in open sea without taking a radiator hit, trying to rendezvous with a convoy, reporting enemy vessels, then somehow navigating back to your moving carrier using dead reckoning. Probably not everyone’s cup of tea but I’m sure there’s a lot of people (including myself) who would enjoy those types of missions. 

 

Being as we don’t have carriers, large ocean maps, or detailed navigation/comms right now, the Fulmar wouldn’t be very useful if simply dropped into the current ecosystem. Hopefully one day those features will exist and at that point I would very much like to see the Fulmar added. The Skua on the other hand could be dropped right into the current ecosystem of the sim and still be useful.

 

Although I’m often advocating for less popular or less effective airplanes, that is only because they need more advocation. I understand modeling any airplane is a huge task and resources are very limited. I hope I don’t come off as critical of TFS’s future plans. I’m definitely not. Given only so many planes can be added per module, and the scope of each individual module has to be limited, I think TFS’s current roadmap for the future is excellent. I believe they’ve made very wise decisions with their plane sets so far, and I therefore have reason to believe they will continue to do so in the future.