Boulton Paul P.105 and P.107

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
8,078
Reaction score
4,399
Hi!
https://plane-encyclopedia.com/ww2/boulton-paul-p-105-p-107/
"Late in the Second World War, the Royal Naval Air Arm began seeking out an aircraft design that would be able to fill both the fighter and bomber roles. Having one aircraft perform multiple roles would eliminate the specialization of carrier-borne aircraft needed to fill the fighter, dive bomber, and torpedo bomber roles. No official requirement was ever put out to build such an aircraft, but several companies had begun developing aircraft that would fit this role, which had become known as the “Strike Fighter”. Westland, Blackburn, Fairey and Boulton-Paul would all develop designs that correspond to the strike fighter role. Boulton-Paul’s aircraft design would be known as the P.105."

"The P.105 was meant to be a small, high-performing aircraft that could easily be converted to fill other roles, even carrier duties. To do so, it would use a unique idea. To fill the variety of carrier-borne roles, the P.105 would have modular cockpit and bomb bay sections. The interchangable modules included a torpedo-bomber (P.105A), reconnaissance aircraft (P.105B), fighter (P.105C) and dive-bomber (No designation given)."
 

Attachments

  • Boulton-Paul-P_105.jpg
    Boulton-Paul-P_105.jpg
    162.6 KB · Views: 145
  • Boulton Paul P.105B.jpg
    Boulton Paul P.105B.jpg
    116 KB · Views: 142
Last edited:

blackkite

Don't laugh, don't cry, don't even curse, but.....
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
8,078
Reaction score
4,399
"Although the P.105 wasn’t granted production, its story continues in the Boulton-Paul P.107. The P.107 is an intriguing design since very little information pertaining to its development history is available, but its design and specifications has been found. It can be assumed the P.107 began development during or shortly after the P.105 had been created. The P.107 wouldn’t be operated by the RNAA, but instead by the Royal Air Force as a long-range escort fighter. Major differences between the P.107 and P.105 include the lack of folding wings, the removal of the torpedo blister, the addition of a turret and the switch from a single rudder to a twin tail design to improve the firing angle of the turret. The P.107 could also be configured for different roles, but it is unknown if it used the same module system the P.105 used. The P.107 wasn’t selected for production either."
 

Attachments

  • ddt3rbt-4741a5b0-f185-4bb6-a02c-f1bf343dcd6a.png
    ddt3rbt-4741a5b0-f185-4bb6-a02c-f1bf343dcd6a.png
    3.5 MB · Views: 141

cluttonfred

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2008
Messages
1,412
Reaction score
176
Website
cluttonfred.info
Not immediately obvious, but explained in Tony Buttler's book, is that those two little pips on the rear fuselage of the P.107 are actually machine gun muzzles poking out. The guns were arranged to pivot near the muzzles so the breech ends were swinging around inside the fuselage. That limited the field of fire to a cone above and between the tails, but presumably the reduced drag for increased speed and range compared with a more conventional turret was considered a worthwhile trade-off.
 

Similar threads

Top