Gary West Posted May 6, 2007 Share Posted May 6, 2007 Replacement for the Brick will be the mighty Canberra. I've got a couple of TT18's a T17 and a B2, so just looking for an interesting scheme now. EDIT - TT18 85 Sqn RAF Binbrook 1968 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grant Posted May 6, 2007 Share Posted May 6, 2007 Here is a very dark scheme Gary. Taken in Aden in 1963. Cool fin flash. Can't say I have any more info though. Still waiting for my Dad to provide captions! cheers Grant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grant Posted May 6, 2007 Share Posted May 6, 2007 DoH! The Meteor pics came up fine, but I just can't get the Canberra one to appear at all. Mind you it is 22:50. Maybe a mod. could point out my silly mistake, cos I sure can't spot it. cheers (and good night!) Grant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cop Posted May 6, 2007 Share Posted May 6, 2007 There you go. the JPG had to be in caps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary West Posted May 7, 2007 Author Share Posted May 7, 2007 For anyone not familiar with the Classic Airframes Canberra family, a quick look see and one of the big PLUS features. Each kit comes with a comprehensive package of resin parts - the CA models do have their short falls (plastic too thick - panel lines not consistent in depth etc) but the resin bits are a joy. Cockpit & undercarriage parts: Rushton Target pods: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jenshb Posted May 7, 2007 Share Posted May 7, 2007 Looking forward to following this build Gary. Just remember to do something about that nosegear. Jens Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary West Posted May 7, 2007 Author Share Posted May 7, 2007 Looking forward to following this build Gary. Just remember to do something about that nosegear.Jens Your ahead of me there Jens - is it wrong or do you mean strengthen it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PHREAK Posted May 7, 2007 Share Posted May 7, 2007 Replacement for the Brick will be the mighty Canberra. I've got a couple of TT18's a T17 and a B2, so just looking for an interesting scheme now.EDIT - TT18 85 Sqn RAF Binbrook 1968 Hi Gary As far as I'm aware, 85 squadron didn't fly TT18s. Types used : B2, PR3, T4,T11,T19 Use your B2 for an 85 squadron a/c Rich Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PHREAK Posted May 7, 2007 Share Posted May 7, 2007 Here is a very dark scheme Gary. Taken in Aden in 1963. Cool fin flash. Can't say I have any more info though. Still waiting for my Dad to provide captions! cheers Grant Hi Grant That'll probably be a B(I)8 of 213 Squadron....the hornet gives it away. 213 were at Bruggen in the early 60's when my dad was flying PR7s of 80 squadron. The 'grey' scheme will be Grey/Green over Black. HTH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary West Posted May 7, 2007 Author Share Posted May 7, 2007 Hi GaryAs far as I'm aware, 85 squadron didn't fly TT18s. Types used : B2, PR3, T4,T11,T19 Use your B2 for an 85 squadron a/c Rich Your absolutely right Rich- thanks for spotting that mate. She's gonna be a T19 then - can't see much difference between a T19 & the TT18 though? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PHREAK Posted May 7, 2007 Share Posted May 7, 2007 Your absolutely right Rich- thanks for spotting that mate. She's gonna be a T19 then - can't see much difference between a T19 & the TT18 though? Except a bloody great black pointy nose on a T19! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grant Posted May 7, 2007 Share Posted May 7, 2007 There you go. the JPG had to be in caps. Thanks Cop! Capitals indeed, Doh! 213 Sqdn - Thanks Phreak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PHREAK Posted May 7, 2007 Share Posted May 7, 2007 Thanks Cop! Capitals indeed, Doh!213 Sqdn - Thanks Phreak. WT316 was a B(I)6....just googled it instead of guessing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J35 Draken Posted May 7, 2007 Share Posted May 7, 2007 Except a bloody great black pointy nose on a T19! This is a T19 Dad, not the most attractive of Canberra's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary West Posted May 7, 2007 Author Share Posted May 7, 2007 Except a bloody great black pointy nose on a T19! Except on this one maybe??? Model Alliance On target Profile, shows this a/c as a T19 but with a standard nose configuration. Of course the book could be wrong. She is coded WH714. This a/c looks exactly like a TT18. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PHREAK Posted May 7, 2007 Share Posted May 7, 2007 This is a T19 Dad, not the most attractive of Canberra's. Don't be so harsh young man! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary West Posted May 7, 2007 Author Share Posted May 7, 2007 ok - this is what the book says? HELP! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Col. Posted May 7, 2007 Share Posted May 7, 2007 Jeez Gary, you're not having much luck with starting your projects mate. If you want to return to the Bucc I have the Neomega 'pit you can use. It'll be a while before I get a chance to build the three in my stash and you can send me another once they come back into stock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PHREAK Posted May 7, 2007 Share Posted May 7, 2007 ok - this is what the book says? HELP! Hi gary I suspect that On Target Profiles 7 is wrong! I've got it in front of me but I'm afraid that I can't confirm the reference from the English Electric Canberra book as I don't have it to hand. Let me put it another way, the T19 was just a T11 with a nose full of concrete rather than a Ferranti radar....the drawing is of a TT18 (TT standing for Target Tug.....that's a fair clue!). WH714 was a T11 converted to a T19 and looking at my reference@Canberra - the operational record" by Robert jackson, WH714 was never a TT18 so I suspect that Jon Freeman has messed up his research. Anybody got the missing book to hand so as to confirm this ? Rich Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jenshb Posted May 7, 2007 Share Posted May 7, 2007 Your ahead of me there Jens - is it wrong or do you mean strengthen it? The pics I have seen of Canberras show a very typical nose down (or tail up if you like) stance, but judging by photos of completed CA Canberras seen on Hyperscale among other sites, the fuselage sits too level. I think Brett Green corrected his second Canberra build. Jens Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary West Posted May 10, 2007 Author Share Posted May 10, 2007 Slow progress, still working on the Phantom. Worked on the wings, rescribing completely. The fit of the engine nacelles to the main wing is extremely poor - no matter how I attempted the fit, I had a step to deal with which I just sanded down until it disappeared. The resin wheel bays were painted up and given a wash of raw umber The biggest annoyance so far is CA's ommision to cut out the rear seat windows, which you need to do yourself. I drilled these out but still have some gap filling to take care of Next the cocpit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebastien Posted May 11, 2007 Share Posted May 11, 2007 Hi, As I practice the art of being very wrong quite often, I'd say you should build complete fuselage halves before assembling them. I tried the other way. It's a disaster. S. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Posted May 11, 2007 Share Posted May 11, 2007 As I practice the art of being very wrong quite often, I'd say you should build complete fuselage halves before assembling them.I tried the other way. It's a disaster. Warning heeded, thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mentalguru Posted May 11, 2007 Share Posted May 11, 2007 Hi, As I practice the art of being very wrong quite often, I'd say you should build complete fuselage halves before assembling them. I tried the other way. It's a disaster. Your statement... +++ Divide By Cucumber Error. Please Reinstall Universe And Reboot +++ Cucumber error- sounds painful- cam you explain please... too early in the day for photos though... Sudden flash of inspiriation- from what I have seen of canv¥berra fuselage joints- its poss better to paint a cucumber and use that as the fuselage... :whistling: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary West Posted May 11, 2007 Author Share Posted May 11, 2007 As I practice the art of being very wrong quite often, I'd say you should build complete fuselage halves before assembling them.I tried the other way. It's a disaster. Seb - Yes I saw this same tip on a few builds shortly after CA released this kit. Plus the 100Kg of nose weight needed! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts