Boulton Paul Osprey MK V, 1170 NAS, HMS Indefatigable, Japan, Autumn 1946

[The Wooksta!]

Steal one from an Airfix or Frog Shackleton and do the latter with Centaurus engines.  IIRC, it was a proposal.

The Frog contra definitely fits that engine.

[Doug K]

Defiant prop blades are a foot or so longer than Spits, I'm learning a lot from this!

[zenrat]

Do you mean the diameter is a foot more than a Spit or that each blade is a foot longer (meaning diameter is two foot more)?

[Doug K]

Do you mean the diameter is a foot more than a Spit or that each blade is a foot longer (meaning diameter is two foot more)?

Each blade is roughly a 1/72nd scale foot longer..... I've compared the kit originals to both 3 and 4 blade from Spits and the Tempest that started it all (which is another foot per blade longer again).

[zenrat]

 

[Doug K]

OK, so as the initial backstory goes, the BP Osprey served through out war, engined with Merlins, like their Defiant sisters, as well as Bristol Hercules (watch this space) and Centaurus.

Like most Centaurus designs they just missed the end of the war and were used, as planned, by the BPF in the Pacific, spending most if their time on Armistice patrols in Japanese waters before retiring home with the carriers. This was the only design to be built with wing-mounted forward-firing cannon, an addition made in final production. 😉

With the advent of jets and the Admiralty's destruction of almost all the US-built FAA the Ospreys stayed on in frontline for a year or so longer until the decision was made that Fairey Fireflys were more useful (larger, faster, heaver weapon load) and the type was withdrawn and scrapped.

As has been seen in the thread it's the Airfix Defiant with a Matchbox Tempest nose, hook from the Airfix Hurricane that donated the guns to my previous Defiant MK ID build and wheels from a Bren-gun Spit. Nothing else to note except the shortened propellor blades that do make the spinner somewhat overpowering!

IMG_1437 by doug_alba, on Flickr

IMG_1439 by doug_alba, on Flickr

IMG_1440 by doug_alba, on Flickr

IMG_1444 by doug_alba, on Flickr

IMG_1443 by doug_alba, on Flickr

[PR19_Kit]

That's a MEAN looking machine, no matter how short the prop blades are. 

[zenrat]

Very noice.

[Old Wombat]

That's a MEAN looking machine, no matter how short the prop blades are. 

Doug could have stretched the wings to make up for them.

[Doug K]

That's a MEAN looking machine, no matter how short the prop blades are. 

Doug could have stretched the wings to make up for them.

I nearly folded them, next one maybe! 🤣

[Doug K]

Thanks chaps, I'm really please with how it turned out

[NARSES2]

Thanks chaps, I'm really please with how it turned out

You should be 

One of my favourite alternative scenarios - BPF in 1946, done quite a few of their aircraft.

[Weaver]

Nicely done, and the end result is very neat.

In some ways it's a shame they didn't develop the Defiant further as the airframe itself was quite good. I suspect the bottom line was that they just didn't need it.

[Doug K]

Nicely done, and the end result is very neat.

In some ways it's a shame they didn't develop the Defiant further as the airframe itself was quite good. I suspect the bottom line was that they just didn't need it.

Yeah, I think that was it, when you look at what was developed, at least for the RAF, there really was no need. The FAA, however might have benefited, if there had been enough production capability, but as there wasn't there probably would still have been a lot of US designs in the Royal Navy.

[Captain Canada]

Now that I like ! Looks so tough and purpose like. Defo stealing that idea ! Cheers !