Defiant Discussion

[JamesPerrin]

I think the Defiant has probably sold quite well over the years as to a LJ it looks pretty cool. A Hurricane with a turret full of guns and a sharks mouth!. The interesting think is that in kit form an aircraft can be more popular and well known (within the modelling world) than it ever was in reality.

[Chris]

I'm amazed how many of us want to build a defiant, a lousy plane that did very little in the war, yet we love it!

[bluesteel]

I'm amazed how many of us want to build a defiant, a lousy plane that did very little in the war, yet we love it!

It might have been lousy but it looks cool. I just wonder if it might have been batter if given fixed forward guns.

[JamesPerrin]

MPM has the Defiant shapes quite nicely, but the details are in PE and resin - if you get the better of the two kits that they make of it. The challenge for a major manufacturer (IMHO) is to produce the details without resorting to PE and resin. Dragon can do it (with Smart kits), so it's not out to lunch to expect that Airfix could do it.

I should say that the recent Valiant Wings nose correction makes it worth digging out the Airfix Defiant and is a very straight forward replacement.

[Chris]

I'm amazed how many of us want to build a defiant, a lousy plane that did very little in the war, yet we love it!

It might have been lousy but it looks cool. I just wonder if it might have been batter if given fixed forward guns.

probaly not, it had bad handling, not just the turret was a drag.

[peebeep]

I should say that the recent Valiant Wings nose correction makes it worth digging out the Airfix Defiant and is a very straight forward replacement.

Umm, maybe. If you want an accurate Defiant there are still lots of things that need to be fixed or are near impossible to fix. Not to mention the current state of the tooling - completely shot. If you don't care it doesn't matter in any case, although there is no doubt the corrected nose improves the appearance no end. I'm surprised the Defiant hasn't yet been re-tooled as the old kit has been on the catalogue for yonks and must have sold by the gazillion. I'd expect a new edition to be released eventually and you have to accept that to go through the old catalogue in its entirety would take some time.

@ Brews, personally I think the non-high tech MPM Defiant is perfectly acceptable, although obviously YMMV.

peebeep

[jssel]

I was just reviewing the Scale Models Aircraft of the Battle of Britain special where Ray Rimmel grafted the nose of a Heller Spitfire Vb to the Airfix Defiant plus a lot of other work to make the Defiant Mk1. Of course that was circa 1979-80. A lot of work that can be avoided now days.

[Softscience]

. Dragon can do it (with Smart kits), so it's not out to lunch to expect that Airfix could do it.

I'm not sure the production technology Airfix uses is capable of moulding the types of parts that Dragon is turning out. But yes, theoretically it is possible. And really, outside of the aerials on the MK II, there is nothing on a Defiant which requires slide-moulds or anything else above and beyond standard injection technoogies

[Chris]

probaly not, it had bad handling, not just the turret was a drag.

Not from what I've read. Where do you get your information from? The Defiant continued to be built until 1943. Why? Possibly because B-P was an old, connected, engineering firm.

I could ask you the same, the wing was very thin, lacking the wing area of standard british fighters which would limit turn radius and bank ability.

It was a poor design overall, no turret and forward guns would have meant a slow plane that could fire forward and manuver badly.

Also, the guns would be in the very thin wings, and to fit they would have to be pods, and provision for ammo would have to be made, and since the plane's center of gravity would be completely changed there is no telling if its handing would work or how it would land and take off.

Its not just so simple as chop a turret and slap on some guns.

[bluesteel]

From the Defiant Wiki:

The squadron tested their tactics against British medium bombers – Hampdens and Blenheims – and 264's CO flew against Robert Stanford Tuck in a Spitfire showing the Defiant could defend itself by circling and keeping its speed up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BP_Defiant

So seemingly it could defend itself against an early Spitfire, so couldn't have been that poorly handling and/or performing.

[Chris]

What you are dismissing engineers would have a field day with.

take a look at the wings


Compare it to a hurricane, you can see there is a a lot less area.


The planes bare a slight resemblance from their similar powerplant, but that is as far as it goes.

[Chris]

It seems they had a forward gun prototype of it, but the RAF didn't want it, interesting.

[bluesteel]

The real problem with the Defiant was that it was asked to do a role for which it was not designed, that of a fighter, when it was designed as an anti-bomber plane to be protected by other fighters, but production delays saw the bulk delivered slap bang in the middle of the Battle of Britain...

[Chris]

The concept seems to have been wrong, mush as the original concept of the BF 110 was wrong.

One of those 'looks good on paper' deals.

[MerlinJones]

Turrets were a fad of design at the time which, under peacetime, could've lasted a while. During the war, however, its shortcomings were soon revealed, emphasised by loss of aircrew. There was also the Blackburn Roc.
As a nightfighter, the Defiant did enjoy some considerable success.

Compared to other fighters (and most LJ's want fighters), it does stand out, due to its different look and is, therefore, an attractive purchase. That it's inaccurate and one of the Airfix earlier kits does it no favours and it gets dragged out, time and time again, when modellers discuss Airfix. The Defiant was also one of the first kits identified by Airfix in books and magazines, as lacking and in need of attention by messrs. Hall and/or Phillpott.

I would imagine that a new-tool Defiant will be along soon enough,because, until it is, the old will cast its smudgy shadow over the nicer stuff.

Regards,
Bruce