defiant-o-phobes

[meplay]

Hi FF, i was just wondering what the 'Daffy' is?

[Moggy]

Originally Posted by meplay

Hi FF, i was just wondering what the 'Daffy' is?

It's the Defiant's nickname amongst it's aircrew.

I'd love the Defiant to be made flyable too. I think I've got enough good data for both the pilot and gunner positions. Once CoD has been released, I'll approach Oleg and co and see if they're willing to make it flyable.

[major_setback]

Originally Posted by Moggy

It's the Defiant's nickname amongst it's aircrew.

I'd love the Defiant to be made flyable too. I think I've got enough good data for both the pilot and gunner positions. Once CoD has been released, I'll approach Oleg and co and see if they're willing to make it flyable.

I think Oleg might be too busy with updates/bugs and the next releases of the game etc.

We could really do with some sort of outlet for supplying various third party companies and amateur modellers with this type of information. The Anson could easily be made flyable too.

I certainly don't mind helping commercial companies if it means we get more aircraft to fly.

[Friendly_flyer]

Originally Posted by meplay

Hi FF, i was just wondering what the 'Daffy' is?

As Moggy said it was the planes nickname. I get these annoying habits from reading "FlyPast" too much

On a related note:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rKYL0tW-Ek

[AWL_Spinner]

Re: effectiveness as a night fighter. I've shamelessly bumped an earlier post on the topic containing an excellent first-hand account. There's also interesting mention of De Wilde ammo.

[He111]

Originally Posted by Friendly_flyer

One of the aspects I really look forward to is to try out if some of the pre-war ideas would actually work. The Daffy was intended to destroy un-escorted bomber formations. It was in a sense an answer to the "the bomber will always get through" doctrine. During 1940, the Daffy was thrown against fighters with disasterous results, the original concept was never tried out. Now, with FMB and/or some mates over for a LAN party, we can put the original idea to the test: Daffy against Schnellbombers (Do 17 would do nicely)!

Yes, that would be good to test. Also good to setup, if possible, the defensive circle, Sqn leader Hunter devised (264 Sqn) when faced with 109s. Actually I think line-astern, descending, would also have been hard to attack.

He111.

[Moggy]

Sounds a bit like the defensive circles sometimes flown by BF-110s when they were attacked during the Battle of Britain.

[Avimimus]

Originally Posted by Moggy

I haven't heard of this happening, what's your source for this? I know the guns could be trained and fired forward at an angle of 19° or above. I also know there was a switch in the turret to allow the pilot to fire the guns in case the gunner was wounded in action and unable to do so. Although again, I haven't heard of this happening during the war.

Unfortunately, it was an editorial quip made in a book I read several years ago. It was probably based on one or two incidents at the beginning of the war.

However, it appears that the guns could be fixed to fire forward (if the turret was facing directly forward, the guns could be lowered so that they had no elevation). This allowed the airplane to fight conventionally.

Originally Posted by Friendly_flyer

One of the aspects I really look forward to is to try out if some of the pre-war ideas would actually work. The Daffy was intended to destroy un-escorted bomber formations. It was in a sense an answer to the "the bomber will always get through" doctrine. During 1940, the Daffy was thrown against fighters with disasterous results, the original concept was never tried out. Now, with FMB and/or some mates over for a LAN party, we can put the original idea to the test: Daffy against Schnellbombers (Do 17 would do nicely)!

Yes, it is great to test these old concepts isn't it? Try taking a flight of Gladiators against a TB-3 formation in Il-2 (or setting an SB squadron against pre-war fighters)...

[Moggy]

Originally Posted by Avimimus

Unfortunately, it was an editorial quip made in a book I read several years ago. It was probably based on one or two incidents at the beginning of the war.

However, it appears that the guns could be fixed to fire forward (if the turret was facing directly forward, the guns could be lowered so that they had no elevation). This allowed the airplane to fight conventionally.



Yes, it is great to test these old concepts isn't it? Try taking a flight of Gladiators against a TB-3 formation in Il-2 (or setting an SB squadron against pre-war fighters)...

Ok then but how would the Defiant fire without an interuptor gear for the prop? I know the Defiant had an interuptor gear but I'm pretty sure this was only designed to avoid hitting the aircraft.