Best BP Defiant in 1:72?

[3DStewart]

I had an interesting discussion at SMW about which 1:72 kit of the Defiant is 'best'.  We were comparing an modern Airfix kit with another (not sure if MPM or Pavla) side by side and there were differences in cowling shape (not length) and length of u/c and gear doors and the corresponding sit of the aircraft.

 

Let's say best means best overall shape and dimensions.

 

Edited November 13, 2017 by 3DStewart
Typo correction

[Graham Boak]

I would put the Airfix well ahead of the Pavla - I haven't had the MPM.  I believe that both Airfix and MPM had advice from Les Whitehouse (ex-Boulton Paul) as to the accurate shape.

[Work In Progress]

There seems reason to reckon the Airfix kit is *probably* better than the MPM, but that's based on other people's opinions as I have not had the 1/72 MPM kit. TBH I have not seen any serious criticism of the new Airfix kit.

Some earlier comparative discussion here:

... and an informative build thread, showing some exercise of modelling skills being required, for the MPM here. Fortunately the modeller concerned was replete with the skills needed!

I know this wasn't your question, but one thing that build thread abundantly shows is that because the turret is the natural visual focal point when you look at a Defiant model, the investment in a set of Master Model brass gun barrels is highly worthwhile.

Edited November 13, 2017 by Work In Progress

[Don McIntyre]

Make sure you aren't getting the old Airfix kit! That one originated around 1960. 

[3DStewart]

37 minutes ago, Don McIntyre said:

Make sure you aren't getting the old Airfix kit! That one originated around 1960. 

Yes, I meant the new Airfix Defiant, the old one has some hideous shape problems, apart from it's general crudity.

 

Does anyone know if Airfix LIDARed (is that a word?) the real one at Hendon. If they did that would pretty much end any worries about dimensions and shape.

 

[VMA131Marine]

I would definitely go with the new Airfix kit. It looks right, and all the parts fit where they are supposed to go. If you want more detail, there are a couple of Eduard photo-etch sets that provide useful upgrades and a very handy canopy mask set.

[VMA131Marine]

3 minutes ago, 3DStewart said:

Yes, I meant the new Airfix Defiant, the old one has some hideous shape problems, apart from it's general crudity.

 

Does anyone know if Airfix LIDARed (is that a word?) the real one at Hendon. If they did that would pretty much end any worries about dimensions and shape.

 

Airfix did not scan the Hendon Defiant, but they had extensive access to it during its recent restoration.

[Work In Progress]

... which as far as I know the rival oufits didn't when they were tooling theirs.

[3DStewart]

Looking at the photo of the real one at Hendon I think Airfix got it wrong:

 

 

Compare with:

 

 

Nose too bulged by exhausts and probably too long as well.

 

Edited November 13, 2017 by 3DStewart
Trying to get images to link!

[Graham Boak]

Aircraft have very subtle shapes, particularly around the engine cowling, so it is unwise to base too much on any single photo.  Judging just from the above post 9,  I'm inclined to say that whereas the bulge over the cylinder head may betaken a little too far forward, what strikes me more is that the fuselage immediately in front of the cockpit appears too flat.  I suspect that other photos taken from different angles may not back either up.  However, if this judgement is correct, it wouldn't take much more than a few strokes of a file to step back the bulge, or a dab of filler and some sanding to round off the fuselage in front of the canopy.

[Seahawk]

The Airfix kit is certainly cheaper and a more straightforward build.  The MPM kit is however, at least to my eyes, still acceptably accurate.  An advantage it enjoys is that it forms the basis of a uniform family of Defiants: Mk I, Mk.II and TT.I/III, (the last kit including both Mk.I and Mk.II length fuselage halves plus resin parts for a superbly detailed winch operator cockpit).  I didn't feel the need to ditch my MPM kits when the Airfix one came out but the likelihood of further work on my Pavla Defiants is slim.

[Ed Russell]

Those pictures are taken at different angles so it's unwise to compare them.

My Pavla kit will be a donor of the ASR parts and decals to the best Defiant kit - the Airfix one.

 

https://nofineline.com/boulten-paul-defiant-nf-mk-iitt-mk-i-pavla-172/

 

Edit - Mehhh - see below

 

[Work In Progress]

I think the Defiant may have a broader-shouldered nose than that one photo suggests. After all, the shape of the content of that cowling is well known and its contours have to be accommodated. The tops of the rocker covers are broadly splayed and the overall engine package is basically flat on top.

In this photo (sorry about the size) the flattish cowl top and rocker cover accents  to me look more like the kit

 

Edited November 13, 2017 by Work In Progress

[Roger Holden]

Airfix kit is the only one which captures the very distinctive 'coffin' shaped cross-section of the rear fuselage; most others have oval rear fuselage (plans also), including MPM. But MPM possibly correctable with filing. Wheels on RAFM plane are not original and too small (faithfully copied by Airfix). Barracuda Studios makes correct sized replacements. Airfix seems slightly better overall, but MPM not bad.

[3DStewart]

I agree that looks can be deceiving and multiple views are necessary, but I remain of the opinion that Airfix got the nose too narrow in their first kit, but have now gone the other way with their new kit and have a nose that is too bulbous and too straight.  I don't think it looks like this:

 

 

 

 

But I appreciate the comments made by others and may just take a file and some milliput to my Airfix kit, rather than looking for better elsewhere.

Edited November 13, 2017 by 3DStewart

[Heraldcoupe]

This image from the BM walkaround of the same aircraft gives a somewhat different impression.

 

 

I have both Airfix and MPM (Mk1) Defiants, albeit both are unbuilt. My impression of the latter is that the nose is a bit skinny over the top, 

 

Cheers,

Bill.

[3DStewart]

I notice that photos of the recent Defiant restoration do seem to more bulbous than those of it before restoration or when in service.  Does anyone know if the cowling panels are replacements?  That might explain a lot. 

[Heraldcoupe]

38 minutes ago, 3DStewart said:

I notice that photos of the recent Defiant restoration do seem to more bulbous than those of it before restoration or when in service.  Does anyone know if the cowling panels are replacements?  That might explain a lot. 

 

I can't answer that, but what strikes me is the glossier finish in it's older presentation. The fixed lighting in the museum may be responsible for playing tricks with that finish,

 

Cheers,

Bill.

[Graham Boak]

I'm reminded of years of similar arguments about the Hurricane's nose.  Yes, that also is flat (although less so at the rear because of the higher pilot's vision line) and like all engine cowlings with Merlins inside them the sides are parallel until forward of the first cylinder.  They have to be - all of them including the Defiant.  Otherwise the Merlin wouldn't fit inside.

 

I suspect that the current finish is an attempt at the highly matt finish of Special Night (RDM2) whereas the earlier finish was simply high gloss for better wear, or because those responsible didn't know any better.

[brewerjerry]

9 hours ago, Ed Russell said:

Those pictures are taken at different angles so it's unwise to compare them.

My Pavla kit will be a donor of the ASR parts and decals to the best Defiant kit - the Airfix one.

 

https://nofineline.com/boulten-paul-defiant-nf-mk-iitt-mk-i-pavla-172/

 

Hi

    interesting , what ASR parts does the kit contain ? 

  I may purchase one 

    cheers

      jerry

[Ed Russell]

Mea culpa Jerry - my notes on the kit said "ASR extras" but when I looked there are only target tug additional parts. I think the only ASR additions were the underwing containers but that's from memory - you probably know more than I do.

 

I'll build a TT if I can't find ASR info.

[Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies]

I think this discussion should be suspended until someone actually goes and find out, lest the internet be filled with rumours about shape inaccuracies based on photographs of two objects with different glossiness taken at different angles to each other compared subjectively without any tools or quantification becoming defacto fact years from now when this entirely unscientific conjecture keeps getting requoted.

 

People never pick up on facts and don't notice that there isn't a single scrap of meaningful, measurable substance above. All they will remember is that someone thinks it's too long, too flat and too wide.

 

Sorry, but this bugs me.

[Britman]

It looks every inch a Defiant and if you ever had to contend with the earlier kit from Airfix then this is as much as you need to make a nice representation of the real thing. Never look a gift horse in the mouth when its staring at you.

[3DStewart]

1 hour ago, Jamie @ Sovereign Hobbies said:

I think this discussion should be suspended until someone actually goes and find out, lest the internet be filled with rumours about shape inaccuracies based on photographs of two objects with different glossiness taken at different angles to each other compared subjectively without any tools or quantification becoming defacto fact years from now when this entirely unscientific conjecture keeps getting requoted.

 

People never pick up on facts and don't notice that there isn't a single scrap of meaningful, measurable substance above. All they will remember is that someone thinks it's too long, too flat and too wide.

 

Sorry, but this bugs 

Modelling is a subjective activity where we create an image of what we perceive reality to be, so people will always want to discuss their take on it.  I don't think that is going to change.

 

In any case I have presented evidence, in the form of photos, that Airfix may have given the nose of their latest Defiant kit a shape it didn't have in service. Whether that evidence is sufficient is for the reader to decide, as is whether they care or not.

Edited November 14, 2017 by 3DStewart

[Work In Progress]

12 hours ago, 3DStewart said:

I notice that photos of the recent Defiant restoration do seem to more bulbous than those of it before restoration or when in service.  Does anyone know if the cowling panels are replacements?  That might explain a lot. 

Medway Aircraft Preservation Society did the work. I'll ask them in case they did for some reason change the cowl, but will phrase it carefully as it may offend them quite seriously if I use the wrong words.

 

The cowling was all intact when it went in for its restoration. In comparison to what the flying warbird community refer to as restorations wasn't a restoration at all - it was a completely different kind of exercise, a preservation exercise. Given that the aeroplane is always going to be a non-flier, there's absoutely no reason for them to have made something new, (let alone something new and inaccurate when they had an intact original specimen in front of them) and discard the actual historic artefact. In fact that would have been drectly contrary to the purpose of the exercise.