Jump to content

As a result of the close-down of the UK by the British Government last night, we have made all the Buy/Sell areas read-only until we open back up again, so please have a look at the announcement linked here.

This site uses cookies! Learn More

This site uses cookies!

You can find a list of those cookies here: mysite.com/cookies

By continuing to use this site, you agree to allow us to store cookies on your computer. :)

Navy Bird

1:72 English Electric Canberra PR.9 "End of an Era" - Finished!

Recommended Posts

On 2/18/2017 at 13:21, rob Lyttle said:

I just been looking around for a 1/72 Canberra kit, to have a go. Found nothing! Out of production?? Are yours all stashed from days of plenty?

 

I bought the PR.9 a few years ago, but the Xtrakit came courtesy of eBay just a few weeks ago. I managed to pick it up pretty cheap - $25 with free shipping if my memory serves me right. 

 

On 2/18/2017 at 13:32, 71chally said:

I just picked up a third Xtrakit PR.9 for £15 from a well known auction site.

Despite my undying love for that kit, it is quite a bit harder to put together than the Airfix kit, but then that's modelling!

Saying that, it's harder to correct the Airfix.

 

I would agree with what you say about the U/C doors Rob.

 

I kinda feel sorry for Bill, his fabulous build a Canberra thread has become a how to correct one!

 

Ah, you got a better deal than me! Don't feel sorry for me, I knew what I was getting into. If I was a monk, I'd probably be doing that self-flagellation thing.   :) 

 

On 2/18/2017 at 13:36, stever219 said:

Maybe Airfix might be persuaded to do a complete retool (of bomber, interdictor and PR variants) in time for the 70th anniversary of the first flight of VN799 in 2019.

 

That would be great - what do you think the chances are? 

 

On 2/18/2017 at 13:40, canberra kid said:

It's taken some sorting Bill, but if you want to move the tail bumper move it to the panel line just in front of where it is now,

 

I still don't think it has to be moved. In your build of WT333, you state:

 

Gary I had a look at the position of the vent mast and not only is that in the wrong place so is the tail bumper! it needs moving back to about in line with the leading edge of the tail plane! 

 

This is the same conclusion I arrived at above. This photo shows it quite clearly - the panel line, front of the tail bumper, and the leading edge of the panel line are all very close to being aligned.

 

tail bumper

 

When we look at the fuselage photo you posted above, it's the PR.9 whose tail bumper is lined up to the leading edge of the tailplane. The B(I).8 is too far forward.

 

IMG_1703

 

On the PR.9, what seems to be wrong to me is the location of the panel line. It's too far forward of the leading edge of the tailplane. I just don't think there is enough of a reason to move the little guy. There are bigger fish to fry with this kit!   :) 

 

On 2/18/2017 at 13:46, canberra kid said:

This is a link to my WT333 build if you're interested Bill? WT333

IMG_1690_zpsaiopirfw.jpg

 

John

 

This is a beautiful build, just exquisite. I love it! I'm a sucker for anything that's Raspberry Ripple (even ice cream!). Is this 1:72 or 1:48? I ran through your WIP pretty quickly, and missed what the scale was. 

 

 

I just got back from my LHS, and I picked up some 0.005" styrene, as @stever219 mentioned above. I think I'd prefer to make the strengthening plates from plastic, even if I have to sand them down a bit. Having a look at the BareMetal Foil that I have, it's incredibly thin. I don't think it will have the effect I'd like.

 

I started fooling around with some stuff on the belly of the beast. First, the "lip" that Airfix moulded all along the original outline of the bomb bay was removed. Next, I filled some erroneous panel lines, namely the three lines that were supposed to represent the crash strips and one line that ran parallel to the hinge line on the starboard side of the bomb bay. (With my luck, that one is supposed to be there!) Then I ran a 0.020" diameter rod along the hinge lines to represent the rain channel. This was faired into the fuselage (just on the top side) with Perfect Plastic Putty. The photo makes it look like I just put strips of styrene there, but once it's primed you'll see that's it's been properly faired into the fuselage.

 

The two sets of three crash strips per side were added right behind the bomb bay hinge line. I also added the two crash strips right in front of the nose gear, and the two that are right aft of the bomb bay on centerline. The crash strips were made by putting the pieces of styrene rod onto tape to hold it in place while I used a sanding stick to remove enough material to make them "half-round." 

 

IMG_1123

 

IMG_1124

 

IMG_1125

 

The crash strips will be sanded down a bit so they are not quite so prominent. I will use some of the 0.005" styrene to represent the details around the forward fuel tank. There is one strip that is quite noticeable along the aft edge of the tank, and then there are what look like straps along the side. There are also two strakes that run alongside the square camera opening at the rear of the bay. These need to be added as well.

 

Lots more to come, I'm sure!   :)

 

Cheers,

Bill

 

PS. It's not my intent to make this an epic, really it isn't. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey John, you wouldn't happen to have a 1:72 scale sketch of the PR.9 strengthening plates would you? I'm trying to scale your photos, but I want to get it right.   :) 

 

Cheers,

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Navy Bird said:

Hey John, you wouldn't happen to have a 1:72 scale sketch of the PR.9 strengthening plates would you? I'm trying to scale your photos, but I want to get it right.   :) 

 

Cheers,

Bill

I'll post it up tomorrow Bill, the lap top is shut down for the night.

John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, after studying the photos, I came up with this piece of paper as an "idea" of what the strengthening plates should look like. I'm quite anxious to see John's sketch so I can compare. Certainly his sketch will be accurate - after I made this paper shape I laid it over the Xtrakit fuselage and it matches reasonably well, except of course the top edge which we know is off on both kits. So maybe my paper shape is not too far off. We'll see!

 

IMG_1126

 

One thing I guessed at was how far forward these plates go. I think I took this one to a point about midway along the length of the rain channel.

 

Were these plates required due to airframe stress? If so, was it simply age related, or perhaps because of upgraded engines, etc.? How were they attached to the fuselage? I don't see any rivets in the photos. Maybe they used Tamiya thin.   :) 

 

Cheers,

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With John on board this thread there's nothing useful for me to do except interject periodically with an admiring comment Bill.

 

Consider yourself admired!

Tony

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, TheBaron said:

With John on board this thread there's nothing useful for me to do except interject periodically with an admiring comment Bill.

 

Consider yourself admired!

Tony

Same feelings here :worthy:  :worthy:

 

Ciao

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Like what your doing that PR9 is coming together now!

Your attention to detail just astounds me

 

  Roger

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That stiffnener plate looks pretty darned good to me!  

 

If I was to change anything it would be the upper edge which comes down lower as it runs fwd, ie not parallel to the panel line above it.   See below, and Johns side on pic of WT333 earlier.  Looking fwd 3/4s view, perspective throws it off a bit.

The Xtrakit has a panel line which runs down from the top of the fuselage into the wing root, the plate seems to terminate there, transcribe the information across to the Airfix kit.

 

32588918390_0efc5b36d8_c.jpgXtrakit Airfix Canberras by James Thomas, on Flickr

 

This walkaround of XH171 in poorer days is ideal for showing panel lines,

http://www.primeportal.net/hangar/luc_colin/canberra_pr9_walk_1.htm

canberra_pr9_37_of_41.JPG

 

 

Excellent progress there Bill. would agree those strips aren't as prominent as the kit portrays.

I'm sorely thinking of throwing together a PR.9 myself now, but must exercise restraint!

 

BTW Bill, did the cockpit extras etc fit the Xtrakit at all?

Edited by 71chally

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Bill

I've scanned the relevant drawings from the repairs AP, and stitched them together, I think the rear fuselage is a wee bit off, along the top line but not much if it is.

4e7f354b-a65a-4307-8bb1-a44f9ad7c7b8_zps

Corrcted%20side_zpsulaphi4a.png

John   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, canberra kid said:

Hi Bill

I've scanned the relevant drawings from the repairs AP, and stitched them together, I think the rear fuselage is a wee bit off, along the top line but not much if it is.

4e7f354b-a65a-4307-8bb1-a44f9ad7c7b8_zps

Corrcted%20side_zpsulaphi4a.png

John   

 

You are a gentleman and a scholar, sir! Thanks guv'nor!   :) 

 

12 hours ago, 71chally said:

That stiffnener plate looks pretty darned good to me!  

<snip>

BTW Bill, did the cockpit extras etc fit the Xtrakit at all?

 

Thanks, I'll scale John's sketch for 1:72 and make a new template to see what she looks like. And thanks for the link to the walkaround, I missed that one somehow.

 

As far as the resin bits go, the big chunk of Pavla cockpit will fit in the Xtrakit fuselage with a bit of work. The major issue is the cockpit opening - whereas Airfix have a long shape that extends from the front of the instrument panel coaming all the way back under the rear of the canopy (because it includes the shelf behind the seat), Xtrakit have a much smaller opening that's basically square. You would need to enlarge the opening so that it's the same size and shape as Airfix. The resin wheel wells from CMK fit the Xtrakit wings easily. 

 

Cheers,

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll have to have a proper read back over this as I've been pondering a Canberra myself - was it XH134 that made the final farewell tour of low passes over RAF stations across the country?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Navy Bird said:

Were these plates required due to airframe stress? If so, was it simply age related, or perhaps because of upgraded engines, etc.? How were they attached to the fuselage? I don't see any rivets in the photos. Maybe they used Tamiya thin.   :) 

 

Cheers,

Bill

 

I think the plates were introduced to counter acoustic fatigue of the rear fuselage: the additional material altered the natural resonance frequency of the rear fuselage, lowering the frequency below that, or a harmonic, of the engine exhaust noise.  They were probably riveted on; the ability to weld aluminium wasn't as well developed in the 1950s as it is now (in our metalwork lessons in the early 1970s we were told that welding aluminium was difficult due to the rate at which the material oxidises during the process).  The panels could have been bonded, like the de Haviland Comet skins, but riveting was easier, and cheaper.  The riveting on the Canberra was pretty good (it was on the examples I've been lucky enough to get up close to) and it's not easy to spot the rivets on the rest of the airframe under a coat or several of paint.  I wish I'd had access to John's AP scans when I did my panels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, stever219 said:

 

I think the plates were introduced to counter acoustic fatigue of the rear fuselage: the additional material altered the natural resonance frequency of the rear fuselage, lowering the frequency below that, or a harmonic, of the engine exhaust noise.  They were probably riveted on; the ability to weld aluminium wasn't as well developed in the 1950s as it is now (in our metalwork lessons in the early 1970s we were told that welding aluminium was difficult due to the rate at which the material oxidises during the process).  The panels could have been bonded, like the de Haviland Comet skins, but riveting was easier, and cheaper.  The riveting on the Canberra was pretty good (it was on the examples I've been lucky enough to get up close to) and it's not easy to spot the rivets on the rest of the airframe under a coat or several of paint.  I wish I'd had access to John's AP scans when I did my panels.

Thanks Stever, I'd forgoten about the question. You are right, it was also down to the introduction of the more powerful Avon 109's/RA.24 as well as the extra length of the PR's fuselage. As far as I can tell, and I've given them a good coat of looking at they were glued, sorry, I ment bonded 😊 I've seen no indication of rivets. 

John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, canberra kid said:

Thanks Stever, I'd forgoten about the question. You are right, it was also down to the introduction of the more powerful Avon 109's/RA.24 as well as the extra length of the PR's fuselage. As far as I can tell, and I've given them a good coat of looking at they were glued, sorry, I ment bonded 😊 I've seen no indication of rivets. 

John

 

Thanks John: my liberal application of liquid poly to keep mine on might be closer to reality than I'd thought then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, stever219 said:

 

Thanks John: my liberal application of liquid poly to keep mine on might be closer to reality than I'd thought then.

Just like the reall thing, I hope it was Bostik you used 😊

John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ragtag said:

was it XH134 that made the final farewell tour of low passes over RAF stations across the country?

Yes, on the 18 July 2006.

 

The stiffening plates are interesting, they were seen on PR.9s from the mid 60s, but their fitting to other marks seem ad hoc, possibly due to role and expected use.

For instance they don't seem to be fitted to T.4s and I've seen TT.18s without them. Some B(I).8s had them which indicates early fitment.

I must admit I thought that they were flush riveted on, but must be wrong.

Johns repair manual would say for sure.

The panels basically fit equally over the original single panel line that ran up at an angle, following the kicked up rear fuselage structure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 71chally said:

The panels basically fit equally over the original single panel line that ran up at an angle, following the kicked up rear fuselage structure.

 

That panel line seems to be visible after the strengthening plates have been installed. Were the plates two pieces, butting up against each other at the panel line? Can I assume that panel line is where the rear fuselage structure can be detached?

 

Cheers,

Bill the Canberra Deficient

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Navy Bird said:

 

That panel line seems to be visible after the strengthening plates have been installed. Were the plates two pieces, butting up against each other at the panel line? Can I assume that panel line is where the rear fuselage structure can be detached?

 

Cheers,

Bill the Canberra Deficient

That's right Bill on all counts. 

John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, 71chally said:

Yes, on the 18 July 2006.

 

The stiffening plates are interesting, they were seen on PR.9s from the mid 60s, but their fitting to other marks seem ad hoc, possibly due to role and expected use.

For instance they don't seem to be fitted to T.4s and I've seen TT.18s without them. Some B(I).8s had them which indicates early fitment.

I must admit I thought that they were flush riveted on, but must be wrong.

Johns repair manual would say for sure.

The panels basically fit equally over the original single panel line that ran up at an angle, following the kicked up rear fuselage structure.

James other than the PR.3 non of the B.2 or derivative's had the plates, all the big Avon Canberra's did. One thing that has always puzzled me though is when the Australia's re engined the Mk. 20's with 109's they didn't mod the fuselage. The same with the B.57, the J.65 which was more powerfull than the Avon 1 but that could be down to the American's using heavier guage metal.

John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the B57, that's a relief for me. That would have really stuffed their airbrakes though, wouldn't it!

😞 Doh...!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Navy Bird said:

That panel line seems to be visible after the strengthening plates have been installed. Were the plates two pieces, butting up against each other at the panel line? Can I assume that panel line is where the rear fuselage structure can be detached?

Not that panel line Bill, the horizontal (well angled a bit) one, it's hidden under the plate, but emerges aft of it under the tailplane, you can see it clearly on T.4s etc.

 

John, have look at an enlarged version of the pic of 333 rear fuse that you posted earlier, I'm sure I can see flushed rivet detail?

Edited by 71chally

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 71chally said:

Yes, on the 18 July 2006.

 

The stiffening plates are interesting, they were seen on PR.9s from the mid 60s, but their fitting to other marks seem ad hoc, possibly due to role and expected use.

For instance they don't seem to be fitted to T.4s and I've seen TT.18s without them. Some B(I).8s had them which indicates early fitment.

I must admit I thought that they were flush riveted on, but must be wrong.

Johns repair manual would say for sure.

The panels basically fit equally over the original single panel line that ran up at an angle, following the kicked up rear fuselage structure.

 

Thanks chally, I remember that day well - I'd just landed at Leeming and was getting out of the cockpit when she went over so didn't manage a photograph.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the panel line that seems visible, just wondering whether I should scribe it on the strengthening plates once they're on the fuselage.

 

panel line

 

I'm also thinking about how I can make that moss in 1:72 scale...     :)

 

Cheers,

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Navy Bird said:

I'm also thinking about how I can make that moss in 1:72 scale...     :)

 

Cheers,

Bill

 

Ask that question over on RMWeb and I reckon you'll get a few good suggestions :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...