New 32 nd 109 E

[LSP_Ray]

I for one am hoping that Eduard follows their 109E with a scaled up version of their 1/48th Mirage IIIC!!! Nice kit!!!

[Kagemusha]

I can't get my head round people moaning about new 1/32 kits, if you don't want it don't buy it, simple! Alright Dragons P-51D wasn't too hot-though it didn't stop Stephen from buying one even though Hasegawa and Monogram had previously released that mark-but they've followed it up with a, by all accounts superb Bf110, with no doubt more to follow, same as Dragon, but if no one buys these new releases, cos they'd already been released in that scale like Stephen propagates, then there'd be no Bf110, pure economics.

 

Ps. even though I'm British, I hate the Defiant, it was a failure. Give me a Dh Hornet instead, or a Meteor...

[LSP_Matt]

The more 109's the merrier I reckon...a lot of colourful schemes to do. Will look forward to seeing what Eduard come up with.

 

On the Defiant thing.

 

As a plane it was slow, had no forward firing guns and had a blind spot that was exploited by faster more manoeuvrable fighters. It had no effective protection against those fighters (109's). If the concept from the beginning was simply a two seat monoplane fighter designed to mix it with the best of the Luftwaffe, then it proved that concept a failure. If however, the concept was for a turreted fighter then maybe using the Defiant as an test of that concept is hardly fair. After all, it was sent up against superior hardened opposition who exploited the planes inherent design flaws in combat.

 

Consider though the concept of the Bomber destoyer which was effectively used on occasions by the Luftwaffe. Very heavily armed fighters (two or single engined) which were devastatingly effective at knocking down B17's. They were good at what they were designed to do but were vulnerable to the allies own fighter escort. German planners had tried to set a screening force to ward off the Allies fighter escort from the Assault group but they were overwhelmed by numerical superiority. When used piecemeal ( in a role they weren't designed for) the Bomber destoyers were slaughtered. In the right environment the German idea would have been an 8th Air Force show stopper...just the Allies had way too many good fighters.

 

So in the case of the Defiant...was it that the plane was thrust into combat in a way which exposed its vulnerabilities rather than capitalised on its abilities? Is it the plane that is the failure or the concept that the plane was trying to achieve? With wing/nose mounted armament you are constrained to only firing when in range, and when you are pointing in the right direction...something that takes flying skill and limits the time you can be on target. With a turret you could be hosing the enemy from a multitude of angles.

 

Imagine trying the concept with a turreted fighter like the P61 flying with P51 escorts as a screen. High performance, forward firing guns, firepower, loiter, multiple crew, can fly at night...wow. Don't think those He111's would have stood a chance. So long as they got the P61's turrets finally working

 

Cheers Matty

[rotary]

but it's not that simple----the defiant had a number of irriconcilable flaws----to begin with the turret( also made by boulton paul-- weighed in at a hefty 361lb. to which was added 88lbs. for the four guns 106lbs. ammo. and 35lbs. for gunners oxygen etc. thus the loaded weight was 1,700lbs. heavier than the same engined hurri. with, on top of this a smaller wing area. also the 'powers that be' never considered that german bombers in hundreds(the dreaded 'knock out blow') would be escorted by fighters ---after all the bases were in germany(no one expected the fall of france placing fighters across the channel) hence the totally ridiculous 'fighting instructions' book which turned shooting down bombers into a sort of 'take a squirt in turns' ritual. add to this recipe for disaster the unpalatable fact that--and it's crucial----the brain flying the aeroplane was not the brain firing the guns and the calamity that befell the defiant can be seen as guaranteed. what it was ---in it's defence(which it was'nt very good at) was the best design that could be made at the time to the specifications demanded. it was a nice flying aeroplane---but so for that matter was the B.E.2C---the fairey battle, and a lot of other machines---but as a warplane----a machine to defend your airspace---deny the enemy superiority, and bring it's crew back alive-----i'm sorry but the verdict of history must stand---it was a failure----hence it's withdrawal from the B.O.B. in august 1940.

 

dave.

[Ads]

Well, I might have expected as much...

 

That was absolutely the worst case of Internet Trolling I've ever come across. It's so bad, it makes my hair stand on end...

 

But when I noticed who's responsible, it all "Ads" up!

 

S

 

Yes i am pretty corny, but thanks for noticing

 

On THE defiant thing......

 

Well in a Commando comic i read it was all good till "those bleedin Jerries" discovered there were no forward firing guns

"Luume - tha Boche have got me in thier sights" or

"Those ruddy 'uns massacred our squadron"

- and the german airmen had a field day shootin' the brits down in large numbers - "Gott in Himmel" or "Das ist not Ein Boobie"

 

I think thats a good synopsis and lets leave this indepth study at that.

 

And i dont like them in black....and the pilots dont look that smart either?

[LSP_Matt]

the verdict of history

Which I think is harsh. I think that despite the best of intentions the plane was thrown to the wolves. History records what happened though its up to us to look at the circumstances of the time to draw any conclusions. The more factors we consider the more reasonable our conclusions become. In fairness though, during 39/40 the RAF were on a steep learning curve. They needed operational experience in the performance of the weapons systems they had to truly discover what they could and could not actually do in a hostile environment.( Hampdens,Wellingtons,daylight raids).

 

I think the plane could have done better and realised more potential if RAF Fighter Command had 'used' the plane differently. Even if your perspective is that the Defiant was no good I don't see any arguments against a turretted fighter...other than the one pilots without a fire button will give you . I can only conclude that the concept remains unproven until the advent of the P61 and that the potential the Defiant may have had remains unlocked due to erroneous thinking at the time.

 

Maybe if you'd like to continue on what I find an interesting discussion we could open a new thread. (with working shift keys ;-)) We're kind of hijacking here..

 

 

Cheers Matt

[ssculptor]

Maybe if you'd like to continue on what I find an interesting discussion we could open a new thread. (with working shift keys ;-)) We're kind of hijacking here..

 

Cheers Matt

I agree. It is always interesting to read and discuss the thinking or the poor guys who had to plan the tactics of next war ten minutes before it began. Being human we do not see into the future. We can only make educated guesses and hope for the best. Some planes were "failures" but the concepts were not. Why?

For example, the concept of a fighter having a big squirt in a direction that is not straight ahead is an interesting one. The noxies tried that with the Schrachtmuzik (spelling?) concept, where they installed upward firing cannon in the cockpit of the Me-110 night fighters. The idea being tha the Zerstoreer would stealthly move up under the belly of a bomber and then open fire at close range with two to four cannon. In my eyes that is not too different that the Defiant with the upward firing turret and four .30 cal machine guns.

Yes, the Defiant was two or three years too early and even with 4 guns was not carrying the punch it needed. Also it was a day fighter and airborne radar was not invented when it was produced. Put 4 cannon in the turret and a radar set and a bigger engine to get the thing to fly and then it might have been a reasonable success as a night interceptor. Or take out the turret to save the weight and set it up with the Schrachtmuzik as the Me-110 and with airborne radar and it might have worked a few years later as a night fighter.

Should of, would of, could of.

The beginning of WW2 is filled with armaments, tanks, planes, and ships that were planned in peacetime and proved inadequate in the real test of war.

Sorry guys, I still like the Defiant, Whirlwind, P-39, Skua, The Chicago Piano, Heinkel fighters and of course, my personal favorite, the Grumman XF5F-1 Skyrocket.

Stephen

[DaveJ]

Hey, guess what?

 

There's a new 109 E out in 1/32 scale!!

 

Don't know why I'd bring that up in a thread like this.....

[ssculptor]

Hey, guess what?

 

There's a new 109 E out in 1/32 scale!!

 

Don't know why I'd bring that up in a thread like this.....

Oops!

I'm sorry, I thought this was the Defiant thread.

Beg pardon.

Stephen

[MikeMaben]

The question is, for me at least, will Eduard produce 1/32 kits in the future that are not models of airplanes that have been represented by other model companies?

Will they produce a 1/32 Avia B-534 III, Fairey Fulmar Mk.II, Mirage 2000C, IL-2 Shturmovik, or La-7 as they have in 1/48.

Or will they emit just another Fw-190?

 

Actually nobody's done an A-3/A-4

I'd buy wunna those

[Erwin]

I only wish that companies would focus on the lesser known planes too. For example the Defiant. t.

 

I'm to blame for this whole discussion on the Defiant .

 

I will take my punishment as a man.

[LSP_Kevin]

I'm to blame for this whole discussion on the Defiant .

 

I will take my punishment as a man.

 

I usually like to take my punishment as a girl. I have a collection of pink frocks for just such occasions. I find myself wearing them at least twice a week. Sometimes I'm not even in trouble, though I might be feeling a bit Defiant.

 

What's a '109' anyway?

 

Kev

[LSP_Mike]

Kev wrote:

What's a '109' anyway?

That's how many lashes you get for not knowing what a "109" IS. These will be administered by a Filipina muslim,raised by gypsies in Bosnia, wearing leather, and in a reqally bad mood.

[LSP_Kevin]

Kev wrote:

That's how many lashes you get for not knowing what a "109" IS. These will be administered by a Filipina muslim,raised by gypsies in Bosnia, wearing leather, and in a reqally bad mood.

 

I thought you were aiming to punish me Mike...

 

 

Kev

[Erik Lind]

What's a '109' anyway?

 

Kev

 

 

Its 1 short of 110

 

/Erik