This site uses cookies! Learn More

This site uses cookies!

You can find a list of those cookies here: mysite.com/cookies

By continuing to use this site, you agree to allow us to store cookies on your computer. :)

71chally

Members
  • Content count

    1,430
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,376 Excellent

3 Followers

About 71chally

  • Rank
    Very Obsessed Member
  • Birthday

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    UK
  1. Agree with that, I'm amazed at how you produce the quality you do in what appears to be a fairly strict time scale.
  2. You're right John, you can see it quite clearly in this pic,
  3. Hope this helps a bit, the dashed lines show the original panel line under the plate PR.9 panel lines (2400x1358) (2) by James Thomas, on Flickr I should stress that the Canberra is very smooth, and it is hard to see the panel lines, especially on a well presented one. I'm hoping to do a full set of drawings based on AP panel diagrams and photographs, but you build quicker than I draw!
  4. No, the lower one Bill. This is what I was referring to earlier in the thread (not very clearly on reread). In reality that is an angled panel line that runs all the way from the middle of the wing root (rear spar I think) to inside the tailplane root area, it angles upwards as it runs aft. Airfix have incorrectly portrayed this line as horizontal and has terminated it a vertical line. The strengthening plate straddles the original angled panel line so that the original angle line emerges from not quite the top of the vertical edge of the strengthening plate. Your strengthening plate is perfect I reckon Bill, but it shows how wrong the Airfix line is aft of it. The top one is wrong as well, but bar a complete fill and rescribe, that is different territory. Re the AP drawings on page 10, my thoughts on those is that the upper one is the structure schematic for the PR.9, but the lower one is a panel schematic for a bomber version, can @canberra kid confirm? It seems to miss the PR types mid structure between the tank and bomb bay? I'm hoping and praying that these posts don't come across as 'preachy', just kind of hoping some of it's useful for correcting the kit in general, something that's probably worth making a dedicated post for.
  5. As John says the T.11/T.19 had them fitted, I hadn't realised that WJ975 didn't have it until you pointed it out - another Canberra anomolly! Also hadn't realised that High Planes had a B(I).8 ofering of their kit (which must replace the upper forwrad cockit area), so guessing the wind break was there for that. Those plates look suberb Bill, just so! Unfortunately you can see how Airfix have got that horizontal panel line wrong just aft of the plate now, is that the one you're filling in? BTW, really heartening news for you Bill, the 48th Airfix PR.9 is worse than the 72nd one! It doesn't feature any representaion of the those plates, and the fuselage panel lines are in different places again and are completely spurious. The Navs windows are too far fwd, being too close to the entry door, and the nicely molded vortex generators on the 72nd one have been scalled up in thickness, nooo - weird inint!
  6. yeah, I would agree with John. The High Planes is definitely the most accurate Canberra bomber style cockpit kit in 72nd, but again they have tried to multi variant it, even to the point of including the B(I).8 blast door. However they do have the decency to point the differences out, and what to fill in on the instruction sheet. It is nice though, and captures the Canberras looks just right. HP are currently reworking their Mirage III kits to a modern crisp standard, really hoping that they will do the same with the Canberra. I'm staggered that the likes of Airfix didn't come forward to John, knowing the wealth of first hand information that he has on the type.
  7. When are you going to glue that other ruddy wing on! That looks superb!
  8. Very nice, just what I'm looking for, any idea of colouring etc?
  9. Superb build and in a really nice finish there Neil. Cracking shots with the Vulcan as well. You mention that your B-52 was the 86th lost, in 1974, that's quite a sobering thought.
  10. Great news, especially with the RB!
  11. I had a ships cabin AC outlet box, hose for it, a computer fan, and duct tape - I Apollo 13'd it!
  12. They are very cleanly finished machines Canberras, even in that close up of the rear fuse of XH134 I can't make out any rivets in it's normal construction. It some how compounds the issue that Airfix picked a very smooth subject for one of it's most over done panel lines products ever! Hadn't occurred to me before that it was only the larger engined (RA.7 and up) Canberras that got those plates.
  13. A computer fan and a bit of AC/dryer hose is pretty good. I was thinking of the tropical sounding green water versa the brown silty affair!
  14. Superb work -again Tony. Great idea for a spray booth, or if like me you're very sloppy with brushes! Great photos as well, and loving the ditching instructions, obviously not considered the idea of coming down in the Bristol Channel!
  15. With the decals you have brought and using the camo scheme, you could do a 'what if' RAF Germany Phantom squadrons (ie 19 & 92 sqn) received F-4Js, and during the mid to late 1970s. It is a stretch, but that's what WIfs are for! In fact you could go for the combination of the camo finish with blue tail! BTW, F-4J(UK)s never got the modified fin top (as per the FGR.2) with the RWR, so I wouldn't worry about that.