71chally Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 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. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stever219 Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, 71chally said: 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. Interestingly WH904 at Newark, built as a B. 2, has the blast door which I don't recall seeing on any other "goldfish bowl" Canberra that I've been lucky enough to get close to. Now off to trawl for images of other T.11/19 airframes. A quick trawl shows that the nose of WJ975 and at least one of the Swedish Tp52s doesn't/didn't have the blast door, so why does '904 have it? Edited February 21, 2017 by stever219 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canberra kid Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, stever219 said: Interestingly WH904 at Newark, built as a B. 2, has the blast door which I don't recall seeing on any other "goldfish bowl" Canberra that I've been lucky enough to get close to. Now off to trawl for images of other T.11/19 airframes. A quick trawl shows that the nose of WJ975 and at least one of the Swedish Tp52s doesn't/didn't have the blast door, so why does '904 have it? I'd need to check but all T.11's and 19's should have it. The door was there to protect the 4th crew man when he baild out as with the B. (I)8 the T.19's were converted from the T.11 so they remaind on the airframe. The Tp2 was a diferant beast altogether and was only superficially similar to the T.11 with a crew of three John Edited February 21, 2017 by canberra kid 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Navy Bird Posted February 22, 2017 Author Share Posted February 22, 2017 OK, let's see. The strengthening plates are on, and just for fun I sprayed some Alclad Grey Primer to see how bad they look. To be honest, the material is very thin and they might get lost under a few more coats of paint! The big issue now is "some" of the panel lines on the fuselage. I think the ones on the wing will be OK, especially since I don't plan to use a panel line wash. Some, but not all, of the ones on the fuselage are quite deep, so they'll need more than primer. A few coats of Mr.Surface 500 should do the trick, but I suppose I should see if I need to make any more corrections (adding panel lines, filling others). You may notice that the vertical panel line which goes through the aft end of the strengthening plates has been moved rearward. Too much fun. Cheers, Bill 12 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martian Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 Those plates look about right. I was a bit worried that they might end up being too prominent, good work Bill. Martian 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cashman Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 Great attention to detail, Bill, and thanks to all for the excellent research material. I still don't know how you guys know exactly what is in my stash though - but I really do appreciate the assistance. just got to find enough time for this one too.......... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
perdu Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 (edited) On 21/02/2017 at 19:37, 71chally said: 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. Ah yes That will be the arrogance of "BUT" But we've been modelling Canberras for donkeys years We've got boxes of Canberras all over the place, no rooooom for any more Canberra stuff at all BUT Thanks for the offer, don't call us We'll call you... Bill that stiffener is rather tasty but five thou is very thin I dream of the day a plasticarder starts selling seven or eight thou, just thick enough for visible definition but less bulky than fat ol' ten thou, which often comes in at eleven or twelve People who don't use this stuff much do not realise how much difference a few thous makes All of which is to say, better in five than fat old ten Lovely stuff Edited February 23, 2017 by perdu 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hamden Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 The plates look excellent under that coat of primer - really nice and suttell! Roger 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
71chally Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 (edited) 22 hours ago, stever219 said: Interestingly WH904 at Newark, built as a B. 2, has the blast door which I don't recall seeing on any other "goldfish bowl" Canberra that I've been lucky enough to get close to. Now off to trawl for images of other T.11/19 airframes. A quick trawl shows that the nose of WJ975 and at least one of the Swedish Tp52s doesn't/didn't have the blast door, so why does '904 have it? 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! Edited February 22, 2017 by 71chally spelling! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Navy Bird Posted February 22, 2017 Author Share Posted February 22, 2017 3 hours ago, 71chally said: Those plates look suberb Bill, just so! Unfortunately you can see how Airfix have got that hozontal 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! I knew there was a reason I stopped building 1:48 scale! I wish I had the "definitive" set of drawings for all of the panel lines on the PR.9. I've been using John's red line and AP drawings, plus several other drawings I've found on the web, the Airfix decal placement drawings (which are quite different than the kit itself, too bad they didn't use their own drawings!) and the Xtrakit plastic. Of course, they're all different in some respect. Now, the horizontal panel line aft of the plates that you mention - the upper one or the lower one? The lower one is the one that looks like it's coming out of the plates, goes back a bit, and then turn 90 degrees and heads to the underside. I suspect you're referring to the upper one, which should not be an extension of the line that runs along the midsection of the fuselage. I actually scribed that one myself, before I had John's AP drawing. I was following the Airfix decal plan. My plan is to fix that. To be honest with everyone, though, I don't intend to try and replicate and/or fix every panel line on this beastie. I'll fix a few of the major issues, but I deplore scribing and I want to paint this puppy sometime before the end of the decade! Cheers, Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
giemme Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 14 hours ago, Navy Bird said: The strengthening plates are on They look spot on to me, Bill I understand your concerns about them getting lost under more primer and paint coats, but the seem very well defined now and you don't seem the guy that sprays paint on in big pools ... Ciao 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Navy Bird Posted February 22, 2017 Author Share Posted February 22, 2017 49 minutes ago, giemme said: They look spot on to me, Bill I understand your concerns about them getting lost under more primer and paint coats, but the seem very well defined now and you don't seem the guy that sprays paint on in big pools ... Ha! Not me, that's for sure. I'd reckon I use more thinner in my airbrush mixes than just about anyone else on this esteemed board. Thinner is your friend! And so is air pressure! My particular style is probably why I use Gunze and Colourcoats 99% of the time. The pigments are exceedingly fine, and they atomize into an extremely fine spray. And they don't clog. If I'm doing a free-hand camouflage "soft" edge, I'll use up to 75-80% thinner - and I open the airbrush so that a very small amount of highly thinned paint emerges. I can hold the airbrush in one place for seconds, and just watch the colour appear as if by magic. I love it! Takes freaking forever to do some of my paint work, but I like the result. To top it all off, I use a Paasche Model H - single action, external mix. Can't get more basic than that. Some folks spray Alclad grey thinner primer straight from the bottle, but I thin it with 1/3 lacquer thinner. I thin Future too. Did I say thinner was your friend? Cheers, Bill PS. The preceding was paid for by the International Thinner Producers Cabal. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
71chally Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 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. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
giemme Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 12 minutes ago, Navy Bird said: PS. The preceding was paid for by the International Thinner Producers Cabal. Thanks for that, anyway; I aim to get to spraying paint like that, especially for my next project, which will sport a demanding camouflage ... Ciao 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
71chally Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 (edited) 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! Edited February 22, 2017 by 71chally 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canberra kid Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 7 hours ago, 71chally said: 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. I've had a look and I can confirm WJ975 dsoe have the windbreak, and I can also confirm nither of the two Tp.52's does. John 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
perdu Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 I should know better I usually under thin my paint, I mean blobby product... Next time I promise to thin more and try harder Might even use the elderly Paasche but I do rather like my £12 Chinese double actor which far exceeds the belief levels of my peers... The level of fabulous knowledge we're getting here is astounding Thank you all for that 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
71chally Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 You're right John, you can see it quite clearly in this pic, 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canberra kid Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 Hi Bill She's looking really good, I wouldn't get too hung up on the panel lines especially on the wings as you would need to remove the vortex generators to correct two of the lines. The fuselage is a thing of it's own, and as James as pointed out the 1/48 has it's set of issues above and beyond the the ones on the 1/72 kit, the only plus side is they are easier to deal with in Braille scale John 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
71chally Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canberra kid Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 5 minutes ago, 71chally said: Agree with that, I'm amazed at how you produce the quality you do in what appears to be a fairly strict time scale. Thanks James it;s very kind of you to say, I'm very much an enthusiastic amiture! John 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Navy Bird Posted February 23, 2017 Author Share Posted February 23, 2017 On 2/22/2017 at 0:29 PM, 71chally said: 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! Thanks for this. I'll be fixing the upper horizontal panel line in the aft section, but probably not that little lower guy. Gotta pick my battles, and the upper line is larger and more visible. In reality, panel lines shouldn't be all that visible on any 1:72 subject (no! don't start that debate again!). Even still, I think they add some sense of realism to the model. Cognitive dissonance indeed. Don't know about that building quickly thing, look at my yearbooks - dreadfully bereft of quantity. On 2/22/2017 at 2:23 PM, 71chally said: You're right John, you can see it quite clearly in this pic, <snip> Now that is one weird looking bird...put that one on the list to build someday. I suspect John already has! 23 hours ago, canberra kid said: She's looking really good, I wouldn't get too hung up on the panel lines especially on the wings as you would need to remove the vortex generators to correct two of the lines. The fuselage is a thing of it's own, and as James as pointed out the 1/48 has it's set of issues above and beyond the the ones on the 1/72 kit, the only plus side is they are easier to deal with in Braille scale OK, I promise not to get too hung up on the panel lines! Whew! 23 hours ago, 71chally said: Agree with that, I'm amazed at how you produce the quality you do in what appears to be a fairly strict time scale. John has quite the collection, doesn't he? My house isn't that big. Update coming soon... Cheers, Bill 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBaron Posted February 23, 2017 Share Posted February 23, 2017 Bill, James and John: between the three of you this is like watching a classic game of tri-dimensional Canberra chess. Please don't stop! Tony 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stever219 Posted February 23, 2017 Share Posted February 23, 2017 (edited) On 22 February 2017 at 6:48 PM, canberra kid said: I've had a look and I can confirm WJ975 dsoe have the windbreak, and I can also confirm nither of the two Tp.52's does. John On 22 February 2017 at 7:23 PM, 71chally said: You're right John, you can see it quite clearly in this pic, Thanks John. 71chally That's a better picture of '975 than the others I found. I stand erected. Edited February 23, 2017 by stever219 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Navy Bird Posted February 23, 2017 Author Share Posted February 23, 2017 Well, not so much to report but I have been having fun inhaling Mr. Surfacer fumes, watching it dry, sanding it off, rinse and repeat. The nastiest panel lines (such as the Continental Divide which runs horizontally down the upper section of both port and starboard fuselages) got two doses of Surfacer 500, others one dose, and still others one dose of Surfacer 1000. All depending on how bad I thought they were. Some I may even leave alone - like the outer wing sections. We'll see. If I could copy the look of the aft end all over the bird, she could be part of a diorama. You know, a forlorn Canberra left to slowly decay on an abandoned farm somewhere in the Midlands - just needs a canopy you can't see through, some hydraulic fluid, weeds, a rusted out Vauxhall, a dilapidated shed, some sheep, etc. I need to figure out what to do with those wingtips. Don't remember where I found this photo (was it posted here?) but I think this is what the modified wingtips look like. I need to graft on a lump at the front and a lump on the back. Oh, and something (a light?) on the side, plus some fairing in of the guys on the front and back. Shouldn't be too difficult, I suppose. Are these all antennae or sensors of some sort? Should they be painted black? The ones at the front and back look to be at an angle to the edge of the wing - maybe 45 degrees? Or am I misinterpreting the photos? The cowlings that go on the front of the nacelles need to have the camouflage colours wrap around the inside. The engine face has some features that would make it difficult to mask, so I either paint the engine face after the main camo, or somehow add the engine piece later. The latter is not impossible, as the fit of the cowlings to the nacelles is superb. I think I will tack these in place with a smidgen of white glue, paint the camo and then pop them off later to add the engine face. I think this is the way to get the best paint finish on all of those parts. The pieces that make up the rear of the nacelles don't fit so well. Some fettling required here. Oh joy. Cheers, Bill PS. Can I assume that Airfix Part No. J28 is not necessary for XH134 in her retirement scheme? This is a small box-like thing that is supposed to mount on the top of the spine, about halfway from the aft blade antenna and the bottom of the fin. I don't see this part in photos. It looks like a round, flat white part is in this location instead. 3 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