Boulton Paul Defiant kit possible?

[Tony T]

The same goes for the post-war Sea Vixen and Lightning, although Trumpeter have at least attempted the latter in two boxings. 

 

And speaking of upgrade sets for night-fighter kits, the Revell Beaufighter could really benefit from a leg-up: cockpits, wheel wells and tailplane.

 

Tony 

[Out2gtcha]

I know its probably too esoteric for s full 32nd kit, but I would kill for a 32nd Sea Vixen!!

[DeanKB]

On 10/8/2018 at 4:55 PM, Fred Jack said:

You obviously haven’t read much about how slow because of drag and the poor visibility the DR1 had, and the reason the Germans kept using it, unlike the British who dropped theirs, was because until the D.Vlls came out, the Germans had nothing to replace the Dr.1. If the Dr.1 was so great, why was there not another Fokker Scourge as there was with the Fokker E.ll and lll, nor another Bloody April as there was with the Albatros D.lll. As a matter of fact, Fokker had problems at first selling the D.Vll because of the DR1’s reputation.

As far as the Beaufighter replacing the Defiant and the Hurricane as a night fighters. it had to do with radar on the Beaufighter and not the Defiant or Hurricane’s performances. But if I bought my models based on the actual plane’s performance, one of my favorite models wouldn’t be an RE.8.

As far as the Defiant, Scratchbuilders released a stunning Defiant in 1/32 until about 15 years ago in resin. It received great reviews. I even have one.

"Crap" aeroplanes do not produce multiple aces. I'm also fairly widely read on WWI aviation, which is pretty much my favourite niche.

Sure, it had its issues, and was prone to collapsing into a heap - but you can't it was "crap" because it was slow with poor visibility. It climbed & maneuvered like a squirrel on steroids, and some pilots - like Richtofen, for instance - were perfectly happy trading speed for that combination. Personally, being a coward, I'd prefer my warplane to be fast enough to run away should the need arise.

 

The "Fokker Scourge" was down to interrupter gear allowing machine-gun fire through the propellor. It had little to do with the Fokker E itself, which was a most unremarkable aircraft. Similarly, the early Albatros benefited enormously from having twin synchronised machine-guns, whilst the British still fielded pushers & single gunned fighters.

 

There was not another "Fokker Scourge" with the Dr.1, primarily because allied aircraft had improved immensely, with the SE.5a & Camel proving superior and the French SPAD 13's similarly, as well as the fact that only a few hundred were built.

 

Although I'd buy a Defiant 1/32 in an instant, history does not remember it fondly. The Fokker Triplane, for all its faults, is iconic - largely because of Richtofen.

 

 

[Tony T]

1 hour ago, DeanKB said:

"Crap"...

Although I'd buy a Defiant 1/32 in an instant, history does not remember it fondly. The Fokker Triplane, for all its faults, is iconic - largely because of Richtofen.

 

 

And because it's a red little Fokker. And because the Defiant didn't inspire Dick Dastardly, Mutley and carrier pigeon cartoons.

 

Tony

[wunwinglow]

Aircraft qualities are relative. The RAF did some trials pitting a late mark Spitfire against a BAC Lightning, and the Lightning pilot had the devils own job getting a bead on the nimble Spitfire, and the Spitfire had the devils own job waiting around for the Lightning to go flashing by.... Both superlative aircraft, both pretty useless in that combination.One could argue the relative technologies between an E1 and an DH2, and an F2b against a Dr1, and a SPAD 13, were equally striking, just they all happened in barely 2 years of technological development.

 

And we moan when a new mobile phone comes out....

 

Tim