Talk:Boulton Paul Aircraft

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

Untitled[edit]

The Wolverhampton factory is in Pendeford and is now taken over by Smiths Industries. There is a museum there that opens on some weekends featuring some of the famous planes that were built there.

IIRC, after the war BP diversified into non-aviation work, and one of the fields they entered was in metal/wire fencing, as the fencing around the Dungeness power stations was by Boulton Paul, the fencing used to have signs on it with the maker's name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.253.119 (talk) 10:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Defiant 'ill conceived'[edit]

but had a few notable designs of its own, such as the ill-conceived Boulton Paul Defiant. - Although it was not a success I'd tend to disagree with the term 'ill conceived' - the Defiant was conceived as a replacement for the Hawker Demon and as-such was built to the same formula, i.e., a fighter armed with a gun/guns aimed by a dedicated air gunner. The purpose was to attack incoming bombers from directions other than in a diving attack, the Defiant could position itself alongside or below an enemy bomber and open fire with the turret guns. This was quite feasible in the years it was designed as the prospect of enemy fighters accompanying the attacking bombers was unlikely due to the ranges involved. The Fall of France and the moving of Luftwaffe airfields to the French coast at the English Channel changed all this.

The Defiant's main problem was that it had no fixed forward-firing guns and could have done with a lot more power than that given by the Mark of Merlin fitted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.70.155 (talk) 21:46, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hydraulic Power[edit]

"This was more effective than electric motors alone, and did not require power developed by the aircraft's engines as did the hydraulic system ..."

So where on earth did the electric power come from? Pedals?

Gutta Percha (talk) 04:34, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some of it came from hydraulic accumulators. This didn't produce energy from nowhere, but it did reduce the instantaneous power demanded from the hydraulic pump. That allowed a smaller pump, relative to the motor power, it also reduced the load on the engine allowing a simpler drive mechanism and also avoided sudden draw of engine power during combat, which might have an unwelcome effect for the pilot trying to manoeuvre. Note also that the Defiant had about 20% less power (early engine models, not the developed engines which went into the single seaters) than a Hurricane and weighed 1,000lb more. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:15, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]