Orlik 1/33 Boulton Paul Defiant Mk.1

[SJPONeill]

This was part of an order I placed in October that only arrived this week!! The package was well-sealed against the weather but was not very rigid and there was a marked fold across it although this does not appear to have marked any parts.

There are two pages of plans, both equally cluttered but which seem to make sense if you stare at them long enough. Some of the detail around the turret and undercarriage construction is a little vague but hopefully I will be able to muddle through. I particularly like that this model has (for me) a more traditional frame than the normal monocoque style of paper model construction for aircraft so that it is possible to build up the skeleton and have the option of leaving some areas unskinned to show off interior detail without sacrificing anything in the way of strength. For the hassle of a couple of extra parts, I wish that more designers would do this i.e. allow aircraft construction to be more closer to the structure for the hull of a ship.

The parts all look quite nice and logical although the standard RAF green/brown for the upper surfaces is very (too) dark and almost looks black from some angles.

Some parts I will replace with other media mainly in the turret like the gun bodies and ammunition belts. The rest all looks good to go as is...

[SJPONeill]

PS Does anyone know where part N13 (part of the gun mounts) sits in the parts sheets - can't see it anywhere....?

[shrike]

Hans Gerd should be about there in his build.

[Don Boose]

Hans Gerd's build is excellent, but he seems to have discovered some vexing fit problems.

It would be great to see another build of this famous airplane. Orlik has chosen a very attractive operational color scheme.

Don

[SJPONeill]

I found part N13, it is on another page but labelled as M3...

[Rick Thomson]

Given the spectacular failure of this A/C in its given role, I wonder if there was a MkII? Looking at the success of the Bristol Fighter in WWI, I can see how it seemed like a good idea at the time, and I suspect that a Whirlwind with the 20 mm cannons in front, and the 4 gun turret behind, powered by two Merlins, as opposed to the original Peregins (spelling?)would have been an formidable interceptor.

[SJPONeill]

The Bristol Fighter also had a forward firing gun...if a Whirlwind had Merlins, why would it need to weight and bulk of a turret? The Peregrines were it's big problem...

[Rick Thomson]

I was thinking of an updated brisfit, the Whirlwind was conceived as a long range fighter (fighter and interceptor being two different things imo). A Whillybird (as I envision it) going exclusively after bombers, while the Spits kept the 109's at bay, would have made a few eyes water.

Only a what if idea, and now that I think of it, wasn't the Bf-110 based on the same idea, so perhaps not such a brilliant one.

[SJPONeill]

I think the Bf-110 was more along lines of a long-range fighter but after failing at that became a very good bomber destroyer at night. While I think that a 4-gun turret would destroy the slender lines of the Whirlwind (kinda like hooking a caravan up to your Corvette), both the Mosquito and Beaufighter were trialed with 4-gun turret immediately behind the cockpit - that might be a conversion worth trying, maybe with the Orlik Mosquito, not sure if there is a decent 1/33 Beau? The other bomber destroyer I'd love to see in a large scale would be the Bell Airacobra with the manned 37mm turrets in each of the engine nacelles...

[shrike]

Airacuda, not 'cobra

There was a pretty good Beau out there at paperaircraftwerks.com, but that appears to be gone now.

There were also a number of experiments fitting a 40mm S gun turrets to them both as well.

When you get down to it the list of successful twin-engined (propeller, day) fighters is very short indeed.