Jump to content

Boulton Paul Defiant


Nick Millman

Recommended Posts

Some questions regarding the Defiant:-

1. Was the Airfix Defiant ever issued in the USA under the Airfix-72 Craftmaster logo with different box art? I can't find any images of it online.

2. Was the nose of the Defiant II longer and a slightly different shape? The McCaffrey plans (Scale Models) suggest a subtle difference in the nose shape just behind the spinner. (I know about the different under cowling intake shape and size).

3. The Airwaves detail set suggests matt black for the pilot's seat. Is that correct?

4. Some references suggest matt black for the turret ring and framing whilst some show Dark Earth (on Temperate schemes). The monochrome profile drawings in the old Ray Rimmel Scale Models BoB article seem to show a different darker colour for the ring than the surrounding camo but it is not mentioned. The old Ducimus book drawings based on Boulton & Paul documentation show the camo demarcation continuing as a dotted line on the turret ring which is a bit ambiguous. Does anyone know for certain?

5. Best current reference to the type?

Grateful for any insights, thanks, as well as any "not many people know that" details about the type.

Nick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some questions regarding the Defiant:-

1. Was the Airfix Defiant ever issued in the USA under the Airfix-72 Craftmaster logo with different box art? I can't find any images of it online.

Hi Nick, I have just consulted my copy of WW2 Aircraft Kits (John W Burns) and it is not listed, there is a section on MPC issuing Airfix kits under the Airfix Craftmaster Logo in 1965-67, and later under the MPC logo (1968) but it is not there.

Cheers

Dennis

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for that. Very inspiring but also quite intimidating!

Nick

My 1/48 model has been completely built but just needing painting for a couple of years and I was just looking at the turret colours this week. I have looked at lots of photos and there are variations in the base ring colour. It looks to me as though the frames can be black with the base ring in the colour of the surrounding camouflage (green) on the version that I am representing. Some look darker and may be black or dark grey as there is a definite difference. Some early aircraft seem to have the camo colour on the frames but most appear to be black.

The nose on the Mk II is slightly longer with a ring behind behind the spinner and of similar taper to it. This causes a kink in the undersurface profile.

As well as the Ducimus Camouflage and Markings and the old Profile as well as articles in magazines, I have both the Crowood book and the MMP book on the Defiant. The first is a good operational history and the latter is good for detail. The only remaining airframe is a Mk I so no close-ups of a Mk II nose. I would go for the MMP book as the most useful ref on Defiant detail.

Many thanks for that. The MMP book seems to be OP and hard to get but I'll keep looking.

Nick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2. Was the nose of the Defiant II longer and a slightly different shape? The McCaffrey plans (Scale Models) suggest a subtle difference in the nose shape just behind the spinner. (I know about the different under cowling intake shape and size).

Hello Nick,

According to Mushroom model publication No.6117, the only external difference between the Mk.I and Mk.II were a slight increase in radiator, oil cooler and rudder. You can see just by how much in the photo of N1551, one of the Mk.II prototypes on page 29 of the Mushroom book.

However, the Warpaint volume 42 on the type mentions "modifications made to the cowling and radiator", which is pretty vague IMHO, as it does not precisely denote which modifications (which could just be a larger oil cooler).

Regards,

Aleksandar

Edited by warhawk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Nick, I have just consulted my copy of WW2 Aircraft Kits (John W Burns) and it is not listed, there is a section on MPC issuing Airfix kits under the Airfix Craftmaster Logo in 1965-67, and later under the MPC logo (1968) but it is not there.

Cheers

Dennis

Thanks Dennis. I didn't think of looking there!

Nick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello Nick,

According to Mushroom model publication No.6117, the only external difference between the Mk.I and Mk.II were a slight increase in radiator, oil cooler and rudder. You can see just by how much in the photo of N1551, one of the Mk.II prototypes on page 29 of the Mushroom book.

However, the Warpaint volume 42 on the type mentions "modifications made to the cowling and radiator", which is pretty vague IMHO, as it does not precisely denote which modifications (which could just be a larger oil cooler).

Regards,

Aleksandar

Thanks Aleksandar. I had forgotten the Warpaint book (doh!) and checked it out. The plans are by Richard Caruana but are similar to the McCaffrey plans, showing an extension to the cowling just behind the spinner and the profile kink as described by Ian above.

I couldn't see reference to the colour of the turret ring but some of the profiles, also by Mr Caruana, seem to show a black painted ring and framing with the Temperate Land scheme, whilst others show Dark Green and some of the photographs show what appears to be Dark Earth!

Nick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The nose of the Mk.II Defiant was longer for the same reason that the nose of the Mk.II Hurricane was longer, namely that a longer engine was fitted. This is one example where the official manual was wrong, because it quoted the same length, which no doubt led to much of the confusion. This matter was clarified by the well-known modeller and historian Les Whitehouse, who was a Boulton Paul employee and heavily involved in the historic group of ex-BP employees that ran the company museum. I believe this has sadly been closed.

Edited by Graham Boak
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The nose of the Mk.II Defiant was longer for the same reason that the nose of the Mk.II Hurricane was lower, namely that a longer engine was fitted. This is one example where the official manual was wrong, because it quoted the same length, which no doubt led to much of the confusion. This matter was clarified by the well-known modeller and historian Les Whitehouse, who was a Boulton Paul employee and heavily involved in the historic group of ex-BP employees that ran the company museum. I believe this has sadly been closed.

Thanks Graham. Your mention of Les Whitehouse took me back to my ancient copies of Modelworld (the Almark publication) in the vague memory of seeing a Defiant article. Alas I couldn't find one. There was an RAF night Havoc article and not by Les who seems to have written only Luftwaffe subjects for that magazine! Memory!

Nick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I remember them well. I think I still have them stowed away somewhere (the articles, not the magazines). Les was involved with one of the two Czech companies who did short-run kits of the Defiant Mk.II, which is perhaps why they came out at different lengths. I don't remember what triggered the correspondence, but we had some discussions around that time which was when he alerted me to the difference, although of course it is entirely logical.

I have the Pavla one not the MPM one, which hopefully is the right way around!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Graham. Your mention of Les Whitehouse took me back to my ancient copies of Modelworld (the Almark publication) in the vague memory of seeing a Defiant article. Alas I couldn't find one. There was an RAF night Havoc article and not by Les who seems to have written only Luftwaffe subjects for that magazine! Memory!

Nick

Nick, there was a Defiant article by Bryan Philpott in the Oct 1976 Airfix Magazine. This elicited a letter from Les Whitehouse, which was published in the Feb 77 issue. Actually, the letter was split over the Jan and Feb issues.Most of it was about a companion article by Bryan on Fw190 nightfighters - the bit on the Defiant is only a single paragraph, accompanied by a couple of photos and a page of profile drawings by Les, which look to be about 1/72, though no scale is quoted. One is of a Mk II, which is depicted with a nose exactly the same shape and length as on the accompanying Mk I drawing but with 6 exhaust stacks and the larger oil cooler.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no idea when Les realised this different in nose length: possibly it was only when he worked with the heritage group, but our correspondence was at least two decades later than the article you mention. Also, you can't fit a quart into a pint pot, or a Merlin XX into the place filled by a Merlin III. There should also be a larger - or at least repositioned - air intake.

I suspect I may have this correspondence still, but if so it is on a hard disc I don't have installed. Another distraction from modelling ... I suspect it won't be reinstalled soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nick, there was a Defiant article by Bryan Philpott in the Oct 1976 Airfix Magazine. This elicited a letter from Les Whitehouse, which was published in the Feb 77 issue. Actually, the letter was split over the Jan and Feb issues.Most of it was about a companion article by Bryan on Fw190 nightfighters - the bit on the Defiant is only a single paragraph, accompanied by a couple of photos and a page of profile drawings by Les, which look to be about 1/72, though no scale is quoted. One is of a Mk II, which is depicted with a nose exactly the same shape and length as on the accompanying Mk I drawing but with 6 exhaust stacks and the larger oil cooler.

Thanks! I've got the 1976 article but not the issues with the follow-up letters.

Nick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...