Quote:
Originally Posted by Moggy
Did you know there were 8 Defiant aces during it's service? Apart from the well known day and night fighter duties, it was used in air sea rescue. Also there's a hell of a lot pilots today who (maybe in the smallest of parts) owe their lives to the unsung Defiant. After the war, it was the Defiant which was used to test ejection seats and systems.
Yes, it's easy to love the Spitfire, Mustang or 109 and who could blame you for that. But it takes something special to do research on an unloved aircraft and see it for what it truly was. I love the Defiant for it's uniqueness, for the fact it challenged convention. It didn't win but it fought a good fight and it stood up to be counted alongside it's beter known contemporaries.
For instance, 1 of our squadron member's Grandfather was a navigator or rear gunner (I forget which) on Fairey Battles during the Battle of France...he won't hear a bad word against the Battle.
|
I have never doubted that it was used with moderate success, all in all you use what you have (they managed to make use of the Typhoon which was a proper widowmaker!), but it doesn't change the fact that the plane was a piece of aeronautical junk, like most of the British planes produced in the 30s..
If you want to talk in matters of pride I agree with you, but technically and performance wise planes like the Defiant weren't a game changer.
The Hurricane, Spitfire, Lancaster, Beaufighter, Mosquito and Lysander for instance were incredibly excellent designs, but the rest simply wasn't.
Now if we talk under an historical point of view of course it's important to retrieve all the documentation available and preserve the planes: a guy I know has a lot of Farey Battle pieces and would love to restore one, but god knows what an awful machine it was..
So yes, I can understand the enthusiasm and love for quirky planes, but let's not get carried away.. a simple plane like the Lysander or the Storch have saved way more lives than a Defiant..