Homebee Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 (edited) Thanks Paul. Worth open a dedicated thread isn't it? Source: http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234975536-italeri-2015/?p=1886727 Quote S and M Models announcement in Scale Aviation Modeller says they're doing an injection moulded kit of the Camberra B.2. Paul Harrison V.P. Edited September 5, 2018 by Homebee 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Procopius Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 Swoon! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meatbox8 Posted February 7, 2015 Share Posted February 7, 2015 Fantastic! Hope it's not too expensive as I want at least four. There's a big gap in the market for this kit. I'm amazed that Airfix didn't do one instead of the rather limited B(I)8 and PR9. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madcop Posted February 7, 2015 Share Posted February 7, 2015 Fantastic! Hope it's not too expensive as I want at least four. There's a big gap in the market for this kit. I'm amazed that Airfix didn't do one instead of the rather limited B(I)8 and PR9. Actually Airfix released her in 1972 and 1975 ( ref N°s 05012 and 05012-5) . Long desappeared from the shops. ( I think the mold served for following versions ) There is plenty AM goodies for her. ( She is an old lady and is indead in need of some lifting...) Madcop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenDragon Posted February 8, 2015 Share Posted February 8, 2015 (edited) Think the old Airfix one got converted to a B-57 by Palitoy or was that a new tool? No clue on pricing of the S and M kit as they've never done an injection kit before, it is listed as a new tool though. I assume it'll be supplied by another company like Hannants did with their XtraKit models, maybe MPM? Seem to remember MPM announced a Canberra B.2 a few years ago. Paul Harrison Edited February 8, 2015 by GreenDragon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azzaob Posted February 8, 2015 Share Posted February 8, 2015 Yes from what I have read elsewhere the Airfix 05018 B-57 originated out of the earlier 05012 B(I)6, hence 05012's rarity despite four boxings between 1972-83 - Kingkit cashing in at the moment with one for the princely sum of 35UK ...hmmmm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antoine Posted February 8, 2015 Share Posted February 8, 2015 Actually Airfix released her in 1972 and 1975 ( ref N°s 05012 and 05012-5) . Aren't those B.(I)6??? Which mean at least a longer fuselage than the B.2? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wez Posted February 8, 2015 Share Posted February 8, 2015 Aren't those B.(I)6??? Which mean at least a longer fuselage than the B.2? No Antoine, the B.2 and the B.6 had the same airframe, the B(I).6 uses the B.6 airframe. There were many differences between the two marks but externally they're similar. The easy spot is the engine intakes, the starter bullets are shorter on a B.2 compared to a B.6. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antoine Posted February 8, 2015 Share Posted February 8, 2015 Mmmmmmhhhh..... Don't know if I'll trust you, as you don't believe me about Mirage 5/Nesher/Dagger.... Well, joke aside, I've no good paper reference about the Canberra, so if you can point me toward something valuable on the net? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homebee Posted February 8, 2015 Author Share Posted February 8, 2015 (edited) Yes from what I have read elsewhere the Airfix 05018 B-57 originated out of the earlier 05012 B(I)6, hence 05012's rarity despite four boxings between 1972-83 - Kingkit cashing in at the moment with one for the princely sum of 35UK ...hmmmm A blast from the past : http://www.plastik-modellbau.org/blog/legenden-des-modellbaus-bac-canberra-von-airfix-im-massstab-172/2015/ V.P. Edited February 8, 2015 by Homebee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff_B Posted February 8, 2015 Share Posted February 8, 2015 Think the old Airfix one got converted to a B-57 by Palitoy or was that a new tool? No clue on pricing of the S and M kit as they've never done an injection kit before, it is listed as a new tool though. I assume it'll be supplied by another company like Hannants did with their XtraKit models, maybe MPM? Seem to remember MPM announced a Canberra B.2 a few years ago. Paul Harrison Err Paul.... http://www.hannants.co.uk/product/SMK44-01 You forgot the Viscount that Mel did, was a bit of a disaster as over produced for the demand, but Mel has contacts and knows whats involved thus the selection of more popular subjects like the Canberra. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wez Posted February 8, 2015 Share Posted February 8, 2015 (edited) Mmmmmmhhhh..... Don't know if I'll trust you, as you don't believe me about Mirage 5/Nesher/Dagger.... Well, joke aside, I've no good paper reference about the Canberra, so if you can point me toward something valuable on the net? Well Canberra Kid and John Aero would be the best ones to verify the differences between the two but suffice to say, the Airfix 1/48th kit could be built as a B.2/B(I)>6 or a B.20 without conversion of the fuselage, it was the PR.3, PR.7 and T.22 (which was based upon the PR.7 I think) that had the longer fuselage for the cameras. This site may be useful though http://www.bywat.co.uk/canframes.html Here's some pictures which show the differences in the intakes - this is not the only difference, there are many more but this is the easy way of telling whether it's a B.2 or B.6 based airframe.... ...this is a B.2 intake, shorter bullet with a nut on the front (from https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7184/6945681467_39b556f6bc.jpg) this is a B.6 type, longer bullet, no nut (from http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kdZb-vp-PLM/maxresdefault.jpg), ignore the nose as this is a test aircraft. The Gun pack fitted to the B(I).6 was a role fit, if it wasn't fitted you couldn't distinguish a B(I).6 from a B.6, I'm sure John Adams (John Aero) will correct me if I'm wrong but I think aft of the cockpit pressure bulkhead, all bomber version fuselages were the same length. Wez Edited February 8, 2015 by Wez 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theplasticsurgeon Posted February 8, 2015 Share Posted February 8, 2015 A colleage has just asked to to build this kit. His father flew WT307 (examine boxart) during RAF service, and stashed away two copies to build sometime. Then he discovered he rubs shoulders with theplasticsurgeon, thought I'd build a better model, so asked me to build it for him. I'd never got my hands on the actual kit before, but have built 2 Martin B-57s - but he gave it to me about a month ago. Price for this commission - the other copy. His grandfather had been shot down and survived the disastrous Sedan bridge raid in France - so that's another Airfix tribute that turned up for me to build. You're likely to see these builds on BM. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wez Posted February 8, 2015 Share Posted February 8, 2015 A colleage has just asked to to build this kit. His father flew WT307 (examine boxart) during RAF service, and stashed away two copies to build sometime. Then he discovered he rubs shoulders with theplasticsurgeon, thought I'd build a better model, so asked me to build it for him. I'd never got my hands on the actual kit before, but have built 2 Martin B-57s - but he gave it to me about a month ago. Price for this commission - the other copy. His grandfather had been shot down and survived the disastrous Sedan bridge raid in France - so that's another Airfix tribute that turned up for me to build. You're likely to see these builds on BM. IIRC, this kit was a little corpulent and slightly mis-shapen forward of the cockpit pressure bulkhead - only important if that bothers you or your colleague. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
f4h1phantom Posted February 8, 2015 Share Posted February 8, 2015 First of all, thanks to Paul Harrison for the reply. Wish S and M (about whom I had not heard before) the best on producing the kit. I hope the shape is accurate and that they stay away from the overdone, soft and uneven panel lines many manufacturers treat us to these days. Best regards, Jorge. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenDragon Posted February 8, 2015 Share Posted February 8, 2015 Err Paul.... http://www.hannants.co.uk/product/SMK44-01 You forgot the Viscount that Mel did, was a bit of a disaster as over produced for the demand, but Mel has contacts and knows whats involved thus the selection of more popular subjects like the Canberra. Doh! Should have remembered that Viscount Geoff, I've got several in the stash! Paul Harrison Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Truro Model Builder Posted February 8, 2015 Share Posted February 8, 2015 First of all, thanks to Paul Harrison for the reply. Wish S and M (about whom I had not heard before) the best on producing the kit. I hope the shape is accurate and that they stay away from the overdone, soft and uneven panel lines many manufacturers treat us to these days. Best regards, Jorge. You can find out more if you Google S&M models. With regard to fuselage length, the PR.3 and PR.7 had the forward fuselage extension. The bombers and the T.4 were all shorter. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Procopius Posted February 8, 2015 Share Posted February 8, 2015 You can find out more if you Google S&M models. http://www.badmovies.org/movies/badtaste/badtaste3.wav 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woody37 Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 You can find out more if you Google S&M models. With regard to fuselage length, the PR.3 and PR.7 had the forward fuselage extension. The bombers and the T.4 were all shorter. My PC closes down when I type that as the missus puts parental restrictions on my account 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dynamo11 Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 (edited) I'd kill for a decent B.2 that didn't break the bank, even the conversions are hard to come by these days. Airfix's Canberras have been getting harder to find too, maybe a chance for Airfix to re-evaluate their Canberra line and start it up again. It's no secret that Airfix have come a long way since 2009 (and the Hornby buyout) and I'm sure with a bit of minor retooling the old Canberra's could be brought up to scratch. One things for sure, there's definitely a gap in the market for a proper B.2 and, as we've seen with the announcement of the Shackleton, Airfix isn't afraid to fill those gaps even if they are slightly niche. But again I'll take anything from anyone as long as it's good and cheap Edited March 13, 2015 by Dynamo11 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meatbox8 Posted March 8, 2015 Share Posted March 8, 2015 Actually Airfix released her in 1972 and 1975 ( ref N°s 05012 and 05012-5) . Long desappeared from the shops. ( I think the mold served for following versions ) There is plenty AM goodies for her. ( She is an old lady and is indead in need of some lifting...) Madcop Yes, A B(I)6 to be precise. I built it a few years back. Unfortunately the nose profile is well out and pretty difficult to make it look right, for me at least. The kit mould was converted irreversibly to a B-57, back in the 80s I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DOUGHNUT Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 I'd kill for a decent B.2 that didn't break the bank, even the conversions are hard to come by these days. Airfix's Canberras have been getting harder to find too, maybe a chance for Airfix to re-evaluate their Canberra line and start it up again. It's no secret that Airfix have come a long way since 2010 and I'm sure with a bit of minor retooling the old Canberra's could be brought up to scratch. One things for sure, there's definitely a gap in the market for a proper B.2 and, as we've seen with the announcement of the Shackleton, Airfix isn't afraid to fill those gaps even if they are slightly niche. But again I'll take anything from anyone as long as it's good and cheap Never understood why Airfix, Revell and Hannants all went for the B(I)8 and PR9 Canberra as the new tool kit a few years ago, but none have ever visited the B2 versions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Aero Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 A few notes I wrote a few years ago. Tech notes on Canberra’s There seems to be some confusion over the differences between Canberra versions, perhaps this will help. Although the overall lengths may differ and canopies change, the basic nose profiles do not change in plan and side views. B.Mk.2 This was the first production Canberra, powered by the Avon 101 which had the single breech cartridge starter. Three crew ,Pilot, Nav and Observer / Bomb aimer, all in ejection seats, one at the front slightly offset under the goldfish “bubble top” and two in the back. There is also a folding Rumbold seat for a forth crew member with a chest parachute. The nose is glazed with an offset clear vis panel . this is the most common base for all later “funnies” like the T.11, T.17. TT.18 etc. It has radial spoked main wheels. B57A This is an Americanised B.2 built by Martin and was powered by licence built British, Armstrong Siddeley Saphire engines (J65) There were also local airframe production changes. The later 57’s are a totally different beast based on the Canberra airframe. PR.3 A Photo /recce development of the B.2 but with a 14.5 inch extension for cameras inserted in front of the bomb bay which was smaller because of extra tankage and now termed a flare bay. It had a plain glazed nose. T.4 This is the Trainer derivative of the B.2 and is recognised by an unglazed metal nose cap and the three EJ seats are re-arranged with two seats under the” bubble top” ( a pantomime to get into) and one at the back. It also has two DV windows in the “bubble”. The nose swings to one side for equipment access at frame One (which is not the first frame). A version for export called the T.13 of which early examples did not have ejection seats for the pilots. At rest the T.4's elevators are depressed because of the locking bar fitted to keep the stick forwards to allow the swing seat operation. Conversely the bomber versions elevators are up when no tail locks are fitted. The seats in the T.4 are 3CT's and are similar in layout to the Mk.2 in the navs position but don't have thigh guards. (Note They are not the same as a Mk.3 fitted in for instance, a Hunter) If you use this info anywhere I would appreciate it if you would credit me as this is my authorship. B.Mk.6 The B.6 introduced the Avon 109 with a new triple breech starter this has a larger pointed centre body in the intake (the early 3 shot type is quite bulbous) also extra tankage in the wing leading edges. This made it heavier and called for larger stronger four spoke wheels . Variations of the B.6 are the B.I.6 B.15 and B.16. PR.Mk.7 This is the photo development of the B.6 and is a PR.3 layout with the Avon 109 and the B.6 tank wing. Two Crew. RN TT.22’s are converted PR.7s. B.I.8 The “8” introduced the offset fighter canopy and at first glance appears radically different but is really a “boy racer” B.6 with a belly gun pack and wing pylons. The pilot has an EJ seat but the poor Nav does not. Instead he was given a chest type parachute and take off seat at the back and a sidewards facing sliding seat in the nose which had extra windows. Both crew enter by the side door as on all previous Mk’s of Canberra. The canopy does not open. The pilots EJ seat is mounted on the pressure bulkhead on an extension of the standard navs EJ rail so he is further aft and higher than in all previous Mk’s. PR.9 This is the GT version fitted with Avon 200 series engines which have a fickle Avpin liquid starter. The wings have extended tips and the chord is extended inboard of the engines on both leading and trailing edges. The pilot has 3CS EJ seat under a B.I.8 style canopy which does open (clam shell style) and the Nav has an EJ seat (type 4 QS) which is buried in the nose. Access to the Nav’s station is via a swinging nose (at frame One) and the Nav has two tiny windows, a periscope, also a forked stick (to stick notes in to pass them back) to communicate with the pilot. The nose profile shape of all basic Canberras are the same regardless of which hole the pilot looks out of despite what some drawings suggest. Hope this helps John Crew access to the T.4. A pantomime in several acts. The ground crewman unlocks the base of the second pilots seat and swings it forwards so, with no-one in the seat, it locks against the panel. (The top of the seat is hinged from a tubular beam so it swings in an arc). The normal first pilots seat is also attached to this beam on the port (Left) side but it has been moved further over to port The Nav crawls past into the back and straps in. The second seat is then swung completely further aft and locked at a steep angle so the way is clear for access to the port seat from the entrance door. The first pilot climbs in past the stbd seat and straps in. The second pilot now climbs in and straps into the aft angled seat, with his feet braced against the rudder bar plinth. At a signal from him, the ground crewman now moves the seat back to it’s central base locking position, and all three crew are now in position and the crew side door can be closed. At this point the Nav decides he does need a pee after all…….. Canberra brakes.B.1Wheel brake lever fitted to column centre boss. Steering on ground by rudder bar differential.B.2Wheel brake lever fitted to column centre bossPR.3Wheel brake lever fitted to column centre bossT.4Wheel brake lever fitted to each column centre boss.B(I).6Maxarets fittedPR.7Wheel brake lever fitted to column centre bossB(I).8No wheel brakes on column. Maxarets with toe brakes insteadPR.9No wheel brakes on column. Maxarets with toe brakes insteadB(I).12No wheel brakes on column. Maxarets with toe brakes insteadT.13Wheel brake lever fitted to each column centre bossE.15Wheel brake lever fitted to column centre bossT.17Wheel brake lever fitted to column centre bossTT.18Wheel brake lever fitted to column centre bossBrake details via Ross restorer of Canberra PR.9 XH175 Matchbox PR.9 Putting it simply the Matchbox PR.9 kit is quite wrong. The engine nacelles are the wrong shape, especially near the main spar. Also the fuselage is B(I)8 length (too short) and the Frog "8" is PR.9 length for good measure. The tailplane chord on the Matchbox kit is wrong, but it is an error made in good faith. I found only a couple of years ago that the PR.9 AP Vol One has the wrong chord length given on the leading particulars page and this was taken as gospel by the late Maurice Landi, but someone at some time had messed up the AP dimensions. The RAF never noticed and no-one ever checked it ,simply because the Canberra tail chord is always given as a projection to the a/c centreline and this is impossible to measure and it is a dimension which the RAF servicing types would never need to know. so it went unnoticed, until I got suspicious as I used to work on "9"s and started to project lines on photos. This convinced me of the error and it was confirmed by the Eng WO of 39 Sqn who kindly had some guys measure the chord at the root for me. This confirmed that the tailplane was the same as all other Marks. As the "9" has an un-tabbed powered rudder, unlike all the other Mk's. There is a slight rudder chord difference but not enough to worry about. I provided the basic outline shape drawings to Sword, who did the Hannants one, as they were going to use Czech copies of the Aerodata 34 drawings which though beautifully drawn are inaccurate. That’s it in a nutshell. Regards John 8 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 Hi John. Thank you for your very interesting notes, I well remember my flight in a B2 Canberra when I was in the RAF working at the Institute of Aviation Medicine at Farnborough in 1961, we had a Canberra attached to IAM, and going on leave one week end I was offered a flight up to BAC Warton. After all the safety checks, which included a run through the IAM High Altitude Chamber, I climbed aboard, crawled along the passageway on the Stbd side and climbed into the Port ejector seat, not advisable for anyone suffering from claustrophobia, as there is no window, only a small glass panel above your head, I could not see anything outside, however, it was an experience that was matched only many years later when I went on an air to air refueling exercise in a Victor tanker. Robin. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nigel Foster60 Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 I will second that along with hundreds of others I suspect, so how about it Airfix? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now