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

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by stever219

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by canberra kid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!   :)

 

IMG_1136

 

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.    :doh:

 

Cheers,

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those plates look about right. I was a bit worried that they might end up being too prominent, good work Bill.

 

Martian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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..........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by perdu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The plates look excellent under that coat of primer - really nice and suttell!

 

  Roger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by 71chally
spelling!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


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

The strengthening plates are on

They look spot on to me, Bill :clap:  :clap:  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 ... :coolio::winkgrin: 

 

Ciao

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, giemme said:

They look spot on to me, Bill :clap:  :clap:  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 ... :coolio::winkgrin: 

 

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


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

PS. The preceding was paid for by the International Thinner Producers Cabal.

:rofl::rofl: 

 

Thanks for that, anyway; I aim to get to spraying paint like that, especially for my next project, which will sport a demanding camouflage ... :ninja: 

 

Ciao

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hope this helps a bit, the dashed lines show the original panel line under the plate

33056088845_15a1b3f6a6_c.jpgPR.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 by 71chally

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree with that, I'm amazed at how you produce the quality you do in what appears to be a fairly strict time scale.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!:lol:

Tony

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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,

1133804-large.jpg

 

Thanks John.  71chally That's a better picture of '975 than the others I found.  I stand erected.

Edited by stever219

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

IMG_1138

 

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.

 

wingtip

 

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.

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...