TheBaron Posted June 5, 2016 Share Posted June 5, 2016 (edited) Hello all, I'm just finishing a Meteor and inspired partly by John's (canberrakid) luscious B1, have decided I want to acquire a PR variant of the Canberra as a future build. Question is, what kit options currently available do people think are worthwhile? I'm thinking both in terms of kits themselves, and any AM options that are currently in circulation. Any advice would be greatly appreciated Tony Edited June 5, 2016 by TheBaron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
71chally Posted June 6, 2016 Share Posted June 6, 2016 (edited) In kit form you have that I'm aware of, Frog PR.7 1/72 Matchbox PR.9 1/72 (reboxed by Revell) Xtrakit PR.9 1/72 Airfix PR.9 1/72 & 48 Conversions, Aeroclub PR.3/7 1/72 Alleycat PR.3/7 1/48 I've never seen the Frog kit, but have built several Matchbox PR.9s and an Airfix one. The Airfix example is the most modern by a long way and superior in design and finish etc. However I really enjoy building the Matchbox kit which is far more basic with fine raised surface detail, which to me looks better than the busier engraved detail on the Airfix example, PR.9s were quite clean looking aircraft for most of their career. I'm not really sure how they compare in accuracy (one for Canberra John!) but believe that in some areas the Matchbox kit has the lead, though I think the nose profile loses out to Airfix, while the undercarriage, cockpit & finer details definitely does. Matchbox example would probably benefit from Aeroclub canopy Edited February 7, 2017 by 71chally 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kes Posted June 6, 2016 Share Posted June 6, 2016 The Frog PR7 is a 1950's era kit and very basic which may not be an issue for you but this kit seems to be highly collectible and commands high prices on auction web sites, I saw one sell recently which had parts missing for over £50! I quite like the Matchbox kit although some complain over minor accuracy issues, the Airfix kit I have no experience of? canberrakid will be along soon and no doubt give you the benefit of his encyclopedic knowledge of this aircraft!! . . . Kes 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giorgio N Posted June 6, 2016 Share Posted June 6, 2016 The Matchbox kit (also reboxed by Revell) may be more accurate than the Airfix one in a few areas but is also much worse in several others. Adding the total lack of detail in the Matchbox kit, I'd not spend more than 30 seconds thinking about it and would go for the Airfix kit. Xtrakit also did a short run kit, never built it thou so can't comment on this one 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canberra kid Posted June 6, 2016 Share Posted June 6, 2016 Not much to add really Tony, if you are going 1/48 then your options are quite limited, Aeroclub or Airfix. In 1/72 I wouldn't really consider the FROG PR.7, it is just as you would expect from a 1950's kit and it's got issues too. The Matchbox PR.9 as stated has some nice bit's but unfortunately they are far outweighed by the bad bits of which there are many! It can, if you wish be improved as one of my SIG members has shown http://ipmscanberrasig.webs.com/apps/forums/topics/show/12600715-revell-and-matchbox-pr-9-corrections-by-mario-j-grech- So that leaves us with Airfix PR.9's, in common with all the Airfix Canberra's they are very much "The Curate Egg" if you are bothers about how much needs putting right then the best way it to decide which PR.9 you want to build and in what time frame, then start to work out what needs putting right. There is plenty of PR.9 coverage on my site. Rearguards John 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
71chally Posted June 6, 2016 Share Posted June 6, 2016 I'm surprised the Matchbox kits gets such a bad rap. To me the far simpler and finer surface detail is an advantage over the heavy panel lines of the Airfix kit, up to the hemp PR.9s surface detail is not very noticeable on the actual aircraft. I'd sooner correct raised detail than filling trenches. The shape looks good, the fin fairing is more accurate than the Airfix version, the areas I have doubts about are the opening nose profile, which can be reshaped a bit, and the canopy (too shallow) and simple wheels which can be replaced. John you know far more about Canberras than I, are you able to be more specific on the shapes and inaccuracies of two 1/72 PR.9 offerings? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Aero Posted June 6, 2016 Share Posted June 6, 2016 The tailplane is too large. The root chord as given in the AP is actually a theoretical projected dimension which is to the centre line of the fuselage and not the physical root measurement as seen where the tailplane meets the rear fuselage. If the AP figure is applied to the true root chord (which is what Matchbox did) then the tailplane is too wide. The nacelle shape in plan is totally wrong and I seem to recall a length issue. Another John This is what I originally wrote. 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. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBaron Posted June 6, 2016 Author Share Posted June 6, 2016 (edited) 71chally, Kes and Giorgio: Thank you very much for your replies. Having tested the waters I think I'm leaning in the Airfix direction. John: I shall be hopping over to your site for a long cool drink of Canberra goodness to prepare a plan, as you suggest. I appreciate you all taking the time to reply. The rest is up to me! Cheers all, Tony Btw: Just saw this gobsmacking image on the RAF museum Cold War exhibit: John: Your post only appeared whilst I was editing mine for spelling, thanks for the info. Edited June 6, 2016 by TheBaron 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Aero Posted June 6, 2016 Share Posted June 6, 2016 I've edited post 7. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawk Posted June 6, 2016 Share Posted June 6, 2016 (edited) I have both the Xtrakit and Airfix 1/72 Canberra PR.9s. Both have their pros and cons but when I examined the kits for differences and then looked at my references to see which was right, Xtrakit seemed to score higher than Airfix. IIRC the main advantage the Airfix kit had was that the wing vortex generators were actually represented where Xtrakit depict them with transfers only. So I have, rightly on wrongly, standardised on the Xtrakit version. Edit: oh, and the Airfix kit has the wingtip tanks. Edited June 6, 2016 by Seahawk 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBaron Posted June 7, 2016 Author Share Posted June 7, 2016 Thanks Nick. You've made me curious now about the Xtrakit option (never having built anything from them yet). What particularly made you score it higher than the Airfix option on accuracy? Tony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
71chally Posted June 7, 2016 Share Posted June 7, 2016 (edited) Thanks for the specific info, John Aero. The 'waisted' nacelle shape is quite noticeable in planform. Also interested to hear more about the Xtrakit, I nearly brought some of these back in the day, but was led to believe that they were based (and improved) on the Matchbox kit. Good review on an Xtrakit build here, http://hyperscale.com/2008/features/canberrapr972bg_1.htm Edit, and here, http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/31904-172-canberra-pr9-finally-finished/?pid=410639#entry410639 http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/57506-english-electric-canberra-prmk-9-fach-343-ex-raf-xh-173/ The vortex generators look nicely rendered for the scale, in many old shots of PR.9s you barely notice them. Is there much to look out for to correct on the Airfix offering? I have done a walkaround with internals of a PR.9, will try and get the pics uploaded sometime. Edited June 7, 2016 by 71chally Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawk Posted June 7, 2016 Share Posted June 7, 2016 (edited) Thanks Nick. You've made me curious now about the Xtrakit option (never having built anything from them yet). What particularly made you score it higher than the Airfix option on accuracy? Tony It was a while ago and I'm away from home at the mo so can't dig out kits or references but it was by comparing differences between the kits (eg presence/absence or location of things like minor intakes and fuselage windows) with my references. Also, IIRC, surface detail much more refined on the Xtrakit vis-a-vis the early Hornby era kit. The absence of wingtip tanks on the Xtrakit is a bit of a disappointment though: needed for many marking options, especially earlier ones. But it's not a slamdunk and it would not surprise me if there were now a rush of people, probably more knowledgeable than I, to tell us why the Airfix kit wins. Many Xtrakits have to greater or lesser extents been disappointments (Sea Harrier, Scimitar and especially Hunter T) but they still have some credit in my book for having given us the Canberra PR.9 and the Spitfire XII. Like most of the others except the Meteor NF (ex Matchbox) both were actually tooled by Sword. Don't know where the story of the Xtrakit being a revised Matchbox kit came from: I have that kit as well and such a thought never once entered my head while examining the Xtrakit. May have to check it out now! Edit: from the Brett Green review linked by 71chally: "This model has nothing in common with the old Matchbox kit." Edited June 7, 2016 by Seahawk 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
71chally Posted June 7, 2016 Share Posted June 7, 2016 Thanks Seahawk, It was looking at those links that confirmed to me as not related to Matchbox kit, though some of the breakdown and features are quite similar. Comparison of Xtrakit and Airfix offerings here, https://obscureco.wordpress.com/2010/03/26/172-canberra-pr-9s-airfix-vs-xtrakit/ I think I may order one now! Also, edited my initial post to include the Xtrakit Canberra, as initially I thought they were the same! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBaron Posted June 7, 2016 Author Share Posted June 7, 2016 (edited) Nick: thanks for the details. Appreciate it. 71chally: Useful link. Thanks for that. Cheers both, Tony (oscillating between Airfix and Xtrakit...or bashing both together..hmmm..) Edited June 7, 2016 by TheBaron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawk Posted June 7, 2016 Share Posted June 7, 2016 Comparison of Xtrakit and Airfix offerings here, https://obscureco.wordpress.com/2010/03/26/172-canberra-pr-9s-airfix-vs-xtrakit/ Wouldn't argue about the truly epic sinkmarks in the Xtrakit wheelbays - but my models are not intended to have people peering into their wheelbays. The price differential may have been true when both kits were new but the Xtrakit doesn't seem to have held its price well: saw a secondhand one at the Gloucester show for £8. Think the Obscureco 12-round fight is good fun but the overall scores may be skewed by awarding marks for things that (for me) aren't so important (eg clarity of instructions). On the other hand I would have been much harder on Xtrakit for omitting the wingtip tanks. Neither kit is so bad to justify cobbling two into one. Toss a coin and live with your decision. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
71chally Posted June 7, 2016 Share Posted June 7, 2016 It's a personal thing of course, but I never saw a PR.9 with tip tanks fitted, and they seem to be rarely pictured with them, happy to build without but I guess also nice to have the option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canberra kid Posted June 7, 2016 Share Posted June 7, 2016 Having read the review that James kindly posted the link for I decided to take a look at both kits. I guess it's down to what you want but for me the Airfix kit is still the better option, both kits are full of errors with a lot of missing and fictitious panel detail. and a confusion of parts, non of the options in ether kit can be built from the box apart from perhaps option B in the Airfix kit. The Xtrakit nearly got it right but they haven't modified the wing tips, but neither have Airfix for the later options in there kit. The Xtrakit has much more in common with a late Mod PR.9 it has the under wing chaff dispensers but they are molded a raised squares, the Airfix decal is a much better option for this. One other thing, a pet hate of mine is they have both got the fuselage strengthening plates wrong, they are too deep, extending too high up the fuselage sides, they should be raised areas but a lightly engraved panel would be acceptable in 1/72 but the Airfix trench. The only point I can see in favor of the Xtrakit PR.9 is the cockpit and seat, but that's only my opinion. John 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sloegin57 Posted June 7, 2016 Share Posted June 7, 2016 I have both the Xtrakit and Airfix 1/72 Canberra PR.9s. Both have their pros and cons but when I examined the kits for differences and then looked at my references to see which was right, Xtrakit seemed to score higher than Airfix. IIRC the main advantage the Airfix kit had was that the wing vortex generators were actually represented where Xtrakit depict them with transfers only. So I have, rightly on wrongly, standardised on the Xtrakit version. Edit: oh, and the Airfix kit has the wingtip tanks. ??? - As far as I am aware, none of the kits has the wing tip tanks, which were the same as the "standard" tank, hung in the same relative position as on other Canberras (but appeared "underslung" due to the wing tip extension) and were festooned with vortex generators in order to correct, or try to correct, adverse airflow in that area. They also had a fairing between the tank and the mainplane. One of the major problems with all of the kits is the shape of the canopy which IMHO is far too "flat" Dennis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sten Ekedahl Posted June 8, 2016 Share Posted June 8, 2016 A good Xtrakit Canberra build blog by my friend and skilled modeller Magnus Fridsell, can be found here: http://www.aeroscale.co.uk/modules.php?op=modload&name=SquawkBox&file=index&req=viewtopic&topic_id=112264 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBaron Posted June 8, 2016 Author Share Posted June 8, 2016 A good Xtrakit Canberra build blog by my friend and skilled modeller Magnus Fridsell, can be found here: http://www.aeroscale.co.uk/modules.php?op=modload&name=SquawkBox&file=index&req=viewtopic&topic_id=112264Just took a look at Magnus' work Sten. A really good effort that gives a good idea of the Xtrakit option in terms of the build process.Thanks for that, Tony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
71chally Posted June 8, 2016 Share Posted June 8, 2016 ??? - As far as I am aware, none of the kits has the wing tip tanks, The Airfix kit definitely comes with the tanks. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canberra kid Posted June 8, 2016 Share Posted June 8, 2016 The Airfix kit does come with tanks but as stated, they need some work to fully represent PR.9 tanks. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sloegin57 Posted June 8, 2016 Share Posted June 8, 2016 The Airfix kit definitely comes with the tanks. The Airfix kit does come with tanks but as stated, they need some work to fully represent PR.9 tanks. John Are they on a separate sprue Gents ?. If so, then my examples are missing one. Both in 48th and 72nd. Dennis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
71chally Posted June 8, 2016 Share Posted June 8, 2016 Separate sprue to the wings, they are on the tailplanes sprue. 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