rickshaw

The build was OK, the canopy was OK. Didn't need an angle grinder.

Not an A-4 expert but it looks rather suspiciously like a rocket launcher to me. It features four holes in the front and the back which looks very much like a rocket launcher.

Australia and Israel and South Africa would all disagree with that comment.

I am unsure why you are so anti-top mounted missiles. Mounting them where they are is actually quite a good idea. It makes sure they have the best field of view in a turning fight. The idea was resurrected for the Jaguar and it worked quite well. One of the problems with mounting them down low is that the missile's seeker is blanked out by the canard when the aircraft is turning towards the target. Not a good idea at all. Low mounting might be more convenient but it comes with it's inherent problems. Much better to leave the missiles where they are.

Didn't Academy reissue the Hobbycraft kit? Yes, they did, according to Scalemates.

High Planes does a set of Canberra intakes, both big and small cartridge starters

What scale? Basically a B.6 would be the same the B.2 in `1/72

The Revel kit is more accurate than the Trumpeter one.

I stand corrected. I obviously didn't use the search function. Now I've done that, I've found what kits are available. I recently purchased a T.4 nose in resin by Heritage. Looks good.

It is should be just a rebadged and re-marked Canberra B.2... If you are going to be working on the D, I would recommend you insert a spar. The wings are really too heavy for insert. You will also need a load of weight in the nose to compensate for the weight of the wings.

No, they don't. Actually, just perusing their website suggests they no longer produce any Canberra variants. They did do a B-57A and a B-57D/E. You can make a B from the D fuselage with a new set of wings.

It seems then, that most of your moans are just that, moans. You can never please everybody 100% of the time. For me, the High Planes kits are a little more expensive than an Airfix run-of-the-mill kit. I enjoy them. They are challenging but not excessively so. A B.2 or a T.4 would be adequate.

I am constantly surprised that manufacturers don't put a little bit of thought into their moulds. With the Canberra you'd start with a B.2 and then move onto a PR.3 and then to a B.6 and then a B(I)8 and then to a PR.9. You could then branch off to the B-57 series. All you need is an interchangeable nose and wings. High Planes do a B-57 BTW.

It is very much horses for courses. Downunder, High Planes were once locally manufactured and then they moved to Singapore. They are still available easily through this magic thing called the Internet. I am constantly surprised how resistant British modellers are to using it to order models. Yes, as I mentioned, they need some extra work compared to most modern kits. However, that shouldn't deter most modellers. We have come a long way since the days of sanding balsa blocks. All that is needed is a bit of effort and some filler. Give it a go. You might be surprised that with a little effort you can get quite a good result.

I wonder why everybody ignores the High Planes range of Canberras? They are IMO the best shape and best detailed models out there. Yes, they require a little more work but apart from that they are quite rewarding in their outcome if care is taken. I have built the B.2, B.6, B-57B/D and various versions of them. They are IMO the bees knees. I found the Matchbox PR.9 undernourished, the Airfix B.2/B.20 overfed and Frog ones were OK. Mach 2 isn't worth mentioning.