Jump to content

453rd BG Museum Build - USAAF Boulton Paul Defiant TT Mk I (from the Airfix 1/48 Mk I) - FINISHED


Fritag

Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, Fritag said:

My superficial understanding is that the USAAF 326th BG (which operated the 11th CCRC which used the 2 Defiants) used the codes JW (according to Google) so it seems a reasonable assumption to me that DR944 would also carry the squadron codes JW.

from

https://boxartden.com/reference/gallery/index.php/Camouflage-Markings/British-Aircraft-in-USAAF-Service

British%20aircraft%20USAAF%20service%202

British%20aircraft%20USAAF%20service%202

 

16 hours ago, Fritag said:

 

The photo of DR944 suggests that the lowest part of the individual aircraft code is an inverted triangle which to me suggests a 'V'.  Hence I'm minded to infer that DR944 was JW-V when with the USAAF.

 

That's a lot of assumption and inference and not a lot of evidence; so I'm obvs. willing to be corrected and I'm not yet sure it's sound enough reasoning to proceed with.

Apologies if stating the obvious,  has anyone asked the Americans?    I'm not sure what I'd start, perhaps the https://www.americanairmuseum.com 

has DR945 https://www.americanairmuseum.com/archive/aircraft/dr945  

 

 He can be busy, but @Dana Bell knows a thing or two about US archives.  You may get lucky,  it's the sort of oddity that I think would amuse Dana.

 

One point you maybe on the right track is the alphabet

as in U being followed by V?  Just a thought. 

 

On 23/01/2023 at 12:52, Ex-FAAWAFU said:

 I had no idea that MB had ever used a Defiant; fabulous - at least the beast did something useful.

probably fighting talk with @AndyL posting here.   

AFAIK the Defiant was OK as a nightfighter, and must have been reasonable enough as a target tow to have been both converted and built on one specifically , as plenty were used for that, as well as Air Sea Rescue type.  

 

Fascinating project @Fritag  

 

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting projects after the two pearls which you've delivered recently!!!

I'm one of those who didn't know Americans flew Defiants, and this project is very attractive! I may get also some info about 3D...for exemple now I know Fusion 360 exists and I've watched a tutorial video...who knows... 

I'll be watching with attention.

Ciao

Massimo

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Fritag said:

I then printed out a crude block of the side profile to check the sizing with the cut down fuselage:

 

y4mWlwQ-Ezx36OByuTJcI0RUYlicyH0ld5L6FARs

 

 Excellent work as always Steve. You can use one of these two little tricks to avoid/reduce elephant foot effect when the print supports are not used (I am sure you already know):

1. Rotate the model (around x axis) 90 deg on one side to get clean bottom surface and correct height

2. Put a little chamfer to bottom surface edges

Serkan

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exquisite progress from the, “Legal Eagle”. 🦅 watch out that might just stick. 😀

You’re giving me pangs for the printing process. Not so much Tom foolery going on on my mirage. Maybe I need to pick something that needs modifying, or something from scratch again. 🤔

The “clear thinking” (great explanation to your methods) is evident in these first few steps. I’m enjoying this very much. Thanks for an lovely start to a cold Wednesday.

 

J. 🤩

  • Like 3
  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lovely work so far. I'm keenly watching!

As to previous comments, the Defiant did a lot more useful stuff than it's been credited, as it's always been seen as a failure during the Battle of Britain. But when moved night operations it found it's calling, becoming the top scoring night fighter during the Blitz. Some of the encounters are pretty hair raising, with engagements opened as little as 30 yards from their targets. Those pilots stalked their targets and got in close. The Defiant had it's 'killing time' in May 1941, especially during the raids on Liverpool and Manchester. 

But in 1942 after it was withdrawn from the front line, it saw it deployed in a different role - that of radar counter measures on Moonshine and Mandrel sorties. It started as the Special Duties Defiant Flight and eventually became 515 Squadron. What I like in this story is that Fighter Command began looking for the experienced Defiant aircrews, pulling in those ex Battle of Britain aircrew, and experienced air gunners, with some being pulled out of Bomber Command ( a lot of ex Defiant air gunners were in BC by this time ), and many of those air gunners were Gunnery Leaders having completed their GL Course at the Air Gunnery School. First CO was Sam Thomas who had been on 264 Squadron at the start of hostilities; notably he had evaded escape when he was shot down over the Dutch Biesboch on 13th May 1940.

And to elaborate - Moonshine 'spoofed' German radars into thinking that a large formation was on it's way, and more or less made the Luftwaffe scramble fighters to engage aircraft which didn't exist. 

Apologies for the thread drift everyone! :)

  • Like 9
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, AndyL said:

that of radar counter measures on Moonshine and Mandrel sorties. It started as the Special Duties Defiant Flight and eventually became 515 Squadron.

I recall reading about them in the Martin Streetly Scale Models series and Aircraft of 100 Group book,  but what was known was pretty vague, has your sleuthing turned up and  modeller friendly info of decent photos and equipment fit? 

 

Again apologies for the thread drift,  since this is a Defiant thread,  how the book going Andy? 

For those unaware Andy is in the process of doing what should be THE Defiant book.   

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Troy, go back a page to see comment re computer sabotage (the computer doing the sabotage, that is).  Sorry to hear that, Andy.  I've been through several computers, and I'm STILL not as organized about backing up as I ought to be.

 

2 hours ago, AndyL said:

becoming the top scoring night fighter during the Blitz

 

That's a bit like saying "We're the top selling band from the Faroe Islands." (My spell check doesn't know about this place, apparently.)  Yes, I'm being a bit sarcastic, and apologies to the likely numerous great Faroes bands.  But no, I don't hate the Defiant.  I'm glad I didn't have to go to war in one, but then I'm glad I didn't have to go to war full-stop.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, woody37 said:

Great choice of subject young Steve, enjoying what you've done so far. you make this 3d printing thing look easy. how do you translate real sizes and into digital ones? 

He'll be using the rules in the scan as his scaling reference in Fusion (all CAD software gives you scaling tools), so he'll measure between the marks on the rules in the software and adjust the scale of the base image in that until the measurements tie up. If you're not using something like that as your template (drawing up from a set of dimensions for instance), you can draw it life size, then just scale to suit (think drawing a Spitfire life sized, then printing it at whatever scale you wantes). I hope that helps? Trying to put it in terms people who haven't spent over 20 years as a CAD monkey will understand :)

 

James

  • Like 4
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, I will concede that the Defiant did some useful stuff (but then, so did the Roc, which is almost universally derided as a useless lump; if nothing else, a couple of Roc turrets were converted to airfield AA guns...).  But it achieved precious little in the role for which it was designed (I too know of few Faeroe-ese rock & roll giants).  After all, the Shorts Sturgeon was a pretty decent target tug in the end... but the trouble is that it was actually designed as a torpedo bomber. 

 

Not Boulton Paul's fault; it's just that the whole "turret fighter" concept was... let's keep it polite and say 'flawed'.  Flawed in a similar way to the Admiralty's pre-War belief that our carriers wouldn't be operating close in to land, so the RN didn't need fighters that could compete with Bf109s et al... and anyway the AA barrage from escorts would be plenty.  So 'flawed' as in "complete rubbish", in fact.

 

There was a war on, so serviceable airframes were used for many purposes - squadron hacks, trainers, or uses where performance wasn't the primary issue (such as ECM).  My Dad has Whitley and Defiant time in his log book as late as 1944 ("map reading Speke - Carlisle - Ouston"), and I'm sure those aircraft were fine for the purpose of a young Observer keeping his basic skills up (and probably having a bit of a jolly; his girlfriend at the time lived near Carlisle...).  But that doesn't make either of them successful designs.

  • Like 6
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/23/2023 at 9:36 AM, AndyL said:

 

7E8MDjR.jpg

 

Just re-read this about DR944 and noticed the bit about "the aircraft had been used by the U.S.A Air Force the target towing, and was in such a dilapidated state that it had to be completely reconditioned".   I expect I'm at liberty to finish it well weathered then? :winkgrin:

 

On 1/25/2023 at 12:28 AM, hendie said:

Now if only you'd done a bit of vac-forming too I could have said you're off to a blistering start.

I'll just save that one for another day then.

 

Anyone seen my coat?

 

No need for your coat, Alan.  It's a decent one by your standards :whistle: :P

 

On 1/25/2023 at 3:15 AM, Troy Smith said:

One point you maybe on the right track is the alphabet

as in U being followed by V?  Just a thought. 

 

I'll take any bit of supportive reasoning that's going, thanks Troy.

 

On 1/25/2023 at 6:28 AM, Massimo said:

I may get also some info about 3D...for exemple now I know Fusion 360 exists and I've watched a tutorial video...who knows... 

 

I reckon you'd enjoy it Massimo - as a compliment to, not a replacement for, your formidable skills with plastic.

 

On 1/25/2023 at 7:01 AM, Serkan Sen said:

You can use one of these two little tricks to avoid/reduce elephant foot effect when the print supports are not used (I am sure you already know):

 

Ha.  You're excessively kind Serkan.  I've not printed any component without some sort of supports and raft/base so've never looked into avoiding/reducing the elephant foot effects.  Tricks duly noted, thanks :winkgrin:

 

On 1/25/2023 at 10:42 AM, tomprobert said:

Is this of any use?

 

Yes it is, thanks Tom; it helps a lot with the geometry as most of the photo's I can find are quite dark B&W; although I'm not convinced that the contours around the rear cockpit are quite right, I think the fuselage bulges out a tad more either side of the rear cockpit.  Mind you, the two sets of plans I have don't agree with each other and the kit doesn't quite line up with either.  But it's all fun and games right?

 

On 1/25/2023 at 11:56 AM, AndyL said:

Apologies for the thread drift everyone! :)

 

Forget the others, Andy.  I'll positively welcome any and all comments you have, whether closely related to the build or generally Defiant related at all, or frankly anything that takes your fancy;  I also know by now that anyone likely to read a thread of mine is also likely to appreciate all the thread drift going... 

 

On 1/25/2023 at 12:32 PM, Troy Smith said:

Again apologies for the thread drift,  since this is a Defiant thread,  how the book going Andy? 

For those unaware Andy is in the process of doing what should be THE Defiant book.

 

Same applies to you too Troy.

 

23 hours ago, gingerbob said:

Troy, go back a page to see comment re computer sabotage (the computer doing the sabotage, that is).  Sorry to hear that, Andy.  I've been through several computers, and I'm STILL not as organized about backing up as I ought to be.

 

Used to be me but nowadays (I'm a Mac man) I have iClould back up and a subscription to OneDrive.  So both Apple and Microsoft have my data (OMG...)

 

18 hours ago, keefr22 said:

I'm here now and you ain't getting rid of me Steve

 

That's a safe assertion Keith, seeing as your very welcome n'all.

 

20 hours ago, woody37 said:

how do you translate real sizes and into digital ones? 

 

4 hours ago, 81-er said:

He'll be using the rules in the scan as his scaling reference in Fusion (all CAD software gives you scaling tools), so he'll measure between the marks on the rules in the software and adjust the scale of the base image in that until the measurements tie up.

 

Like that Neil :winkgrin:

 

4 hours ago, 81-er said:

Trying to put it in terms people who haven't spent over 20 years as a CAD monkey will understand :)

 

 

Almost 1 year and counting.  My free subscription to Chitubox Pro (with the Mars 3) must be ending very soon come to think about it.  Should I learn Lychee?

 

1 hour ago, Ex-FAAWAFU said:

My Dad has Whitley and Defiant time in his log book as late as 1944 ("map reading Speke - Carlisle - Ouston"), and I'm sure those aircraft were fine for the purpose of a young Observer keeping his basic skills up (and probably having a bit of a jolly; his girlfriend at the time lived near Carlisle...).  But that doesn't make either of them successful designs.

 

I hope you had plenty of opportunity to chat with him about all those aircraft in his log book, Crisp.

 

I'm becoming quite fond of the Defiant, through reading more about it.  I've got the Kindle edition of the Alec Brew book 'Boulton Paul Defiant An illustrated History' which is interesting on the day fighting experience and contrasts the fortunes of 264 and 141 squadron.  I don't have the knowledge to take a reasoned position on the whole turret fighter concept vs tactics debate; but the advocate in me (i.e. the whole lawyer thing of advocating for your client - whatever the merits) inclines me to want to defend the Defiant :rofl2:

 

Anyroad up.

 

The more I look at the photos and plans of the rear fuselage of the TT the more it becomes apparent that there are lots of contour transitions making it more complicated to model (at least with my level of experience).

 

Am getting there though:

 

y4mOYGUQakJ3_IFdPMY5J69Nzkee-pnfuJirXJGE

 

Ok, so most sketches aren't fully constrained :whistle:

 

Anyway; breaks down into several different 'lofts' in Fusion, thus:

 

y4mvTSTEWnsOxAng6HbU2kwv9XkVqc5PS6aSA5AZ

 

And following Tony @TheBaron's technique of producing a render to check the contours:

 

y4mMzDBl8cciT7qsNncEtU6H2QxYy1j0bP-jejR-

 

That may or may not be it as far as the general shape of the fuselage from the start of the sliding canopy back goes.  I think I'll need to do a test print to check.

 

I've still got to model the rather ugly fairing section just forward of the sliding rear canopy.

 

I tell you what, my first dabble at producing airframe sections like this has just further increased my respect for the likes of Alan @hendie, Tony @The Baron and Ben @wellsprop who produce whole aircraft in CAD....

 

 

Edited by Fritag
  • Like 20
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The Bolton Paul Defiant A Technical Guide" by Richard Franks  Airframe & Detail No.5  by Valiant Wings Publishing 2018,has 1/48th plans and many technical drawings of the 

TT.1 & 3. I took many of the walk round photo's  and cockpit shot's.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, T-21 said:

"The Bolton Paul Defiant A Technical Guide" by Richard Franks  Airframe & Detail No.5  by Valiant Wings Publishing 2018,has 1/48th plans and many technical drawings of the 

TT.1 & 3. I took many of the walk round photo's  and cockpit shot's.

 

In which case I thank you, Nigel - as I am using it as my bible :thumbsup:  In fact I somehow have two copies…

 

I could wish for some fuselage cross sections with the plans tho'! :D

Edited by Fritag
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The MMP book "Bolton Paul Defiant"  by Mark Ansell No6117, has some good plans showing cross sections of the target towing versions, as has the superb Scale Models mag 1982  "Aircraft From the Battle of Britain" by Pat McCaffrey FISTC.  If you need scans I can assist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks again, Nigel

 

I have the MMP book actually and have used some of the cross sections although in truth (as is always likely to be the case) they are spaced too far apart to do the whole job.

 

Also, as is often the case with plans, the profiles in the MMP book differ quite significantly in places from the ones in the Franks book - so it’s been a matter of cherry picking which aligns best with the kit profile and looks best by reference to the photos.  As I say, I’m not trying to do the definitive accurate TT Defiant.

 

If you think the Scale Models Mag would add something to the understanding of the fuselage contours around the rear cockpit (and/or the front 12 inches or so of the Merlin XX nose - which is another difficult area) I’d definitely be grateful for scans, although more cross sections might actually end up as more conflicting information :)

 

 

Edited by Fritag
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Comparing the two books  MMP and Scale Models magazine, nothing to gain in the Scale Models magazine. There is a website boultonpaul.com who may help further.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice progress on the upper rear fuselage changes and very creative use of Fusion functionality too (said as if I know what I am talking about) 🤨

 

If I had money for every time I did this ...

 

1 hour ago, Fritag said:

In fact I somehow have two copies…

 

.... but then if I didn't keep doing it, I'd spend less money!

 

T.

 

 

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Fritag said:

tell you what, my first dabble at producing airframe sections like this has just further increased my respect for the likes of Alan @hendie, Tony @The Baron and Ben @wellsprop who produce whole aircraft in CAD....

Can't help an additional comment here.  This technology is indeed amazing.  Back in the days when we designed Eurofighter Typhoon we didn't have much, if any, computing capability to render drawings the way you are doing here.  Long before it flew Typhoon was shaped for early design interation wind tunnel tests using wooden formers along the fuselage (split vertically along the centre line) which were faired between them using plasticene (or other comercially available modelling clay).  Wind tunnel modelling department was then told to "make it lke that".   How technology has changed this process......:wow:

Loving the Defiant stuff

 

Rob

  • Like 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looking great already Steve. :thumbsup2:

2 hours ago, Fritag said:

As I say, I’m not trying to do the definitive accurate TT Defiant.

It'll just be pure coincidence when you do then I guess.... 😁

  • Haha 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Zephyr91 said:

Back in the days when we designed Eurofighter Typhoon

 

Now I’ve gotta say that statement is impressive.

 

Back in the late 80’s when I was doing the Jaguar QWI course, I did a presentation on the EAP, the technology demonstrator for the Typhoon.  Makes me feel old… :rofl2:

 

I also had to put together a lecture on the Aden 30mm cannon; a level of knowledge that has never subsequently proved useful and which I’m pleased to report no longer occupies space in my memory….  I do however still have a slightly bent Aden gun barrel somewhere in the garage.
 

Edited by Fritag
  • Like 13
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...