Jump to content

canberra kid

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by canberra kid

  1. They did Steve, some of the very first PR.3's may not have done though. I've still not got to the bottom of that. All PR.7's did though.
  2. The mark the anniversary of the first flight of the Martin B.57 Canberra I posted what I considered to be the Alpha and Omega of the type. A few people thought that the B.57G was not the true representative of the Omega, instead it should have been the RB/WB.57F. The F may represent the ultimate development of the Canberra family but even with my slim grasp of the English language I'm sure F comes before G also in reality the RB.57F is not a Canberra but a General Dynamics product. The biggest and only slightly less impressive long wing development of the Canberra family was the RB.57D. John
  3. Phew, I'm glad it's clear! Yes, it really is that line. It's the forward transport joint, the Canberra fuselage brakes down into three sections, simple! John
  4. @BillF67 a PS. If you want some reference have a look around my site IPMS UK Canberra SIG or drop me an email, as I said I can send you some plans for the PR.7 John
  5. Ok @BillF67 Here's how I think it can work using the Airfix B.57 and HP B(I)8. The Areoclub nose you have will fit the Airfix B.57 fuselage, all you need to do is remove so of the thickness on the inside to take the locating ring on the nose. As I've said be fore, for some odd reason when Palitoy destroyed to B.6 to make the B.57 they increased the length to that of the PR. Canberra's, every cloud and all that! The photo shows where the change (yellow line) was made, and where the extra length accrued (blue line) and where to make the cut (red line) The next photo shows after cutting. Another silver lining to the butchery of the B.6 was the decision not to give the new version an open bomb bay option, this means that all you need to do is remove the raisd detail for the Martin bomb bay, and re-scribe as required. I can email the necessary plans for the forward full tank/ flair bay position. The HP B(I)8 wings will be good to go, you will need to either remove some of the span either by reducing the the integral part of wing from the Airfix kit or part of the HP wing, personnel I would remove some from the wing but that's up to you. As a an aside this is a link to my PR.3 that I started, it's not quite the same way as your build but it may give a few pointers. I have done it the way I'm suggesting here on a T.22 but I have no WIP for that PR.3 build. John
  6. That's ok @rossm, it's always good to get other input on a subject. The fuselage dimension on the Italeri B.57B is about the only thing that is right, is fine, 6' 6" that is up until the rear of the bomb bay, that's where it all goes horribly wrong! Well from that aspect anyway, there is so much more, but that's a diferant story! Nice to see you building an A model, what are you going to do it as?
  7. Yes Bill that should work too. I'll get back to you later with more detail. John
  8. Thanks Bill it's the older one not the clear one. Still all is not lost it's a good set. Unfortunately this won't give you the extra fuselage length needed for a PR. Canberra. Rather than the HP Canberra you may be better looking for an old 1/72 Airfix B.57B/RB.57E and a cheap FROG/ Novo/ Revel B.(I)8. The Airfix B.57 for some odd reason is the correct length for a PR.Canberra. The FROG 8 will give you the correct wings. I have one on my site that I started that way some time ago. John
  9. Is the Aeroclub conversion a transparent nose section? You should be good to go with the HP kit, if you are after building a PR.7 you may be better starting with a later Mk.20 or a B.6 as they will have the correct size triple starter fairings for the Avon 109's. I assume you are aware of all the other mods to make a PR Canberra? John
  10. When you say that HP do a B.57 what model? I know they do an RB/EB.57A and RB/EB.57D do they have a B or E in the range? John
  11. That's right the PR.9 was the last operational type in the RAF, and if you allow a point stretch then the WB.57F will be the last of the Canberra family still earning it's keep for the military. John
  12. I didn't ignore the HP Canberra, I mentioned them along with the FROG B(I)8 as being the the most accurate 1/72 Canberra's around. Apart from the RB.57A and RB.57D they have not produced a PR Canberra, which is a shame. So I still think we need an up to date 1/72 Canberra, hell I'd even by happy if they started with an RB/EB.57A and did it in such a way that it could be back engineered to EE Canberra standard. There is also a gap for and accurate B.57B while we're at it, to consignee the Italeri kit to the bin where it belongs. John
  13. If it's the 1/72 old kit then the problem with the noes forward of the canopy is it's too fat, you need to thin it down a hell of a lot to get close to the correct profile, or you can paint over part of the transparent nose cap up to the edge of the optical flat window, this won't correct the issue completely but it does improve the look. The other problems are the engine nacelles are a bit undernourished, the cockpit interior is a joke. It does have some nice features, the main wheels are the only example of the pre mod B.6 wheel good for early Avon 109 Canberra's. Over all shape and dimensions are good, better than the S&M kit. John
  14. Thanks mate, apart from sea plane I don't think there was much she didn't have a stab at! John
  15. Granted she's an impressive beast, but she's not a Canberra, least not in the legal sense, She's General Dynamics not Martin, and most defiantly not a bomber! Having said all that, I still count her as one of the family, This is my 1/48 Airfix RB.57F The only true big wing Canberra was the RB.57D, though not as mighty as the F model, she's still quite impressive John
  16. Thank you, if you want to see the WIP for the G this is the link. B.57G WIP John
  17. Thank you, yes it's defiantly a case of 'if looks could kill' and in this case they did and very effectively! John
  18. It's odd that of all the Canberra's the PR.9 has the most representations in model form, give it was a reconnaissance aircraft, and the smallest production run of any Canberra. John
  19. Yesterday was the 68th anniversary of the first flight on the Martin B.57A Canberra. This is my little tribute to that event. The Alpha and Omega of the Martin B.57 Canberra. EE. B.2 WD932, the first pattern aircraft for the B.57 development program. Alongside Martin B.57G Canberra, the ultimate expression on the Canberra bomber design. The B.57G was perhaps after 21 years finally what Teddy Petter had in mind for the Canberra. Both models are based on the Airfix 1/48 Canberra kits, the B.57G less so as it has the more accurate cockpit section from the Classic Airframes B.57B. John
  20. That's fair enough, it's not everyone's cup of tea, I agree that there should be a mainstream kit of the PR.7, after all it is my favourite production Canberra, but I could only imagine it as part of a s sires of kits like I said as a version produced from a B.6. kit. even then I'd be very surprised as PR aircraft come well down the pecking order for mass production kit types. The best bet would be a resin conversion. I think Revel should take the plunge, after the Germans flew those lovely orange B.2's and most of the Canberra Mk.s were based in Germany at some time, So come on Revel I'm waiting for your email! John
  21. @BillF67 I assume you are thinking 1/72 scale? AtoZee Alycat do a resin conversion in 1/48. or you could do it the old way with a fuselage plug and some chopping and filling like I did with my two. If it's 1/72 then what's needed is one B.2 kit and one B.6 kit with a small amount of forethought in the breakdown of the kit you could get a PR.3 from the B.2 kit and a PR.7 from the B.6 kit. All you need is to do it the way Preston did the real thing. I say two separate kits as there are significant differences between the the B.2 and B.6 which most if not all manufacturers have missed or chosen to ignorer? Though the PR.3 was a development of the B.2 other than the obvious length difference and bomb bay/flair bay configuration there were also other details that were diferant between the two, the same goes for the B.6/PR.7, but given the fact that no one is likely to be bothered to get the small details right then one of each as a generic representation would be the most cost effective solution. The two kits could then form the base for the other variants of the two types. Other than FROG ( B(I)8) and High Planes no one has come close to an accurate Canberra in 1/72, the over priced under researched S&M kit was a big let down and the Italeri B.57B is an even bigger travesty! Aerocub did produce a full vac-form PR, Canberra fuselage in 1/72. I live in hope that some day some one will get around to producing a good accurate B.2 type Canberra in 1/72 John John
  • Create New...