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

Interesting. I have considered this approach of mix and match myself. Will follow along if I may.

 

Edited by Smudge
edit

Share this post


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

 

Thanks, Jamie. I've been thinking about ways to do this since I started this project. The generators are going to be really small in 1:72 scale (I'm sure those moulded on the Airfix wings are overscale, certainly in thickness) - here is another photo:

 

canberra_02_1280.jpg

 

When I see photos like this, I can understand why Xtrakit used decals! In 1:72 scale, the individual blades will be sub-millimetre I'm sure. @canberra kid can you tell us the actual size of the vortex generator blades? Also, I think I read that there were a small number on the bottom of the wing as well - can that be confirmed?

 

After seeing this photo, I see another mistake that Airfix made. The large dark rectangle near the front of the nacelle (vent? intake? exhaust?) is on the starboard side of both engines. Airfix have this on the inboard side of both nacelles, so the one on the starboard engine is incorrect. Xtrakit have this right. I'll have to check, but I think Airfix also have the small oblong windows near the radome just a bit too high on the fuselage.

 

Cheers,

Bill

 

I found that Alleycat make a Canberra PE vortex generator set for 1:48 scale complete with tools for aligning them. Maybe worth a look for inspiration?

 

I spent a bit of time sat on DHC-7 wings at weekends when I was a teenager gluing vortex generators on. They were just L-shaped pieces bonded to the wing skin and sometimes they'd break off (often when accidently kicked by engineers).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vortex generators on 1/72 aircraft are a perenial problem. Moulded on one's are generally too thick, or just flat little blobs etc.

 

It would be great if there was an etch brass solution for this. Maybe in strips that you can cut to fit.

 

I have never tried to make any myself, but I guess it could be done. Maybe out of very thin plastic card though, I think brass would be a bit tough to cut so small, for me anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've only just seen this thread Bill, I would definitely use the Xtrakit kit it's far superior to the Airfix effort which is a poor kit.

As you have the resin bits I don't think there is anything that I would even transfer across from the Airfix kit.

I've built both, and really enjoyed the Xtrakit, I hadn't noticed the length issue mind, which also afflicts the Matchbox kit (which I've done 5 of!)

 

IF there is a length issue I would sooner make it up, maybe a plasticard insert between the fuselage and opening nose section.

 

That rear fuse strengthening plate can be made by using very thin plasticard cut to shape and applied over the right area.

 

Vortex generators, I will wait in anticipation!

Edited by 71chally

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My memory says attaching the tailplanes on the Xtrakit is a pain but my memory isn't always right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5 February 2017 at 4:10 AM, Plasto said:

Aye I'll join you... I'll have a pint of mild and a packet of pork scratchings  hopefully the packet when removed from the retail card behind the bar uncovers  some more of if the lovely 'Miss Scratchins' and we can debate which is bestest the Austin Allegro or Austin Princess...

 

Being unfortunate enough to have had one of each on the driveway at the same time is a horrendous thing to be reminded of...

The good old Aggro replaced an equally recalcitrant A35, whilst the metallic Denim Blue (with matching vinyl roof) Princess 2000HL (posh eh) filled the boots of a much loved 1800 landcrab. The drive still has thick patches of oil from the numerous leaks!

Just to complete my joyous education on the wonder that was Austin, BLMC, BL etc etc, my parents (who owned these rusting heaps) secured me an apprenticeship at the garage where these were maintained. And I use that phrase with caution! 

Back to the now, and you're planning another masterpiece Bill. I'm watching with increasing trepidation as I've just bought an Airfix Cranberry thinking it'll be a nice simple build.........

 

Edge

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I suppose the non contentious response is I now have one. 

 

Thinking about it though the kit does have a few niggles. The panel lines are very heavy. I left mine alone as knocking them back will take some work. The cockpit decking insert needs careful fitment and some effort to tidy up seam wise. The fin profile and elevators need a bit of a tweak to correct.

 The circular camera window on my copy just didn't fit as the step for it to fit into was wrong. The wing tips also need sanding down quite a bit as they sit thicker than the rest of the wing.

 

The whole kit is quite chunky. Just look at the sprue attachment points.. 

 

I don't think it's a 'bad' kit. I just think it represents where Airfix were at when they tooled it. 

 

I built mine OOB here is a quick picture...

 

untitled-2975_zpszpqey1rm.jpg

 

The upside to the panel lines is you dont need any wash as they cast their own shadow.

 

HTH

 

Plasto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fortune (ie accuracy) favours the brave, if you really fancy kit bashing try Xtrakit with the Highplanes kit!

 

One good thing about the Airfix kit is the rather nice decal sheet, enough for four Xtrakit 9s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I concur on the decal sheet from the point of view of a nice selection of schemes..

 

Chillean who knew...??

 

The decals on mine were a bit out of register and the colours were a bit 'thin' and the roundels have a dot effect on them... Definately not Cartograf.... They do go down ok and settle in with some solvent. As always YMMV.

 

I have the balance of the sheet if someone wants em.. Send a PM....

 

Plasto

Share this post


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

 

 

 

Thanks, that jibes with my conclusion that Xtrakit is a bit shorter than Airfix. However, I don't see the Airfix kit being short. The fuselage is 260 mm long (I placed it against a machinist's metric scale for a direct reading), the nose is 17.5 mm (digital calipers - no need to cut in half!), and the RWR is 4 mm or 4.3 mm (there are two optional parts), Adding these up you get 281.5 mm or 281.8 mm. This works out to  66' 6" or 66' 7" - if the real figure is 66' 8" then I would say that my copy of the Airfix kit is pretty close, just one or two scale inches short. I'm quite confident of these numbers. Yours could be different - fickle styrene and all. 

 

 

Well Bill if you're happy to take the readings of fancy digital engineers calipers over my A4 lined note pad and red ball point pen and ruler it's your look out! :) It's good to know Airfix got it just about right. 

John

Share this post


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

 

Thanks, Jamie. I've been thinking about ways to do this since I started this project. The generators are going to be really small in 1:72 scale (I'm sure those moulded on the Airfix wings are overscale, certainly in thickness) - here is another photo:

 

canberra_02_1280.jpg

 

When I see photos like this, I can understand why Xtrakit used decals! In 1:72 scale, the individual blades will be sub-millimetre I'm sure. @canberra kid can you tell us the actual size of the vortex generator blades? Also, I think I read that there were a small number on the bottom of the wing as well - can that be confirmed?

 

After seeing this photo, I see another mistake that Airfix made. The large dark rectangle near the front of the nacelle (vent? intake? exhaust?) is on the starboard side of both engines. Airfix have this on the inboard side of both nacelles, so the one on the starboard engine is incorrect. Xtrakit have this right. I'll have to check, but I think Airfix also have the small oblong windows near the radome just a bit too high on the fuselage.

 

Cheers,

Bill

Hi Bill

I've had a dig around and I can't find the measurements as yet I know I have them, 4 inch rings a very loud bell. One thing I did find while I was looking, the Vortex Generators aren't the usual rectangles bur rounded!

296076_10150426557976579_742771578_10362

As for the ones on the ones under the wing, these are rectangular, there are four of the two each side of the tip tank, they are common to all Mk.s and are there to help with separation when the tanks are jettisoned.

John   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/7/2017 at 14:27, canberra kid said:

Hi Bill

I've had a dig around and I can't find the measurements as yet I know I have them, 4 inch rings a very loud bell. One thing I did find while I was looking, the Vortex Generators aren't the usual rectangles bur rounded!

296076_10150426557976579_742771578_10362

As for the ones on the ones under the wing, these are rectangular, there are four of the two each side of the tip tank, they are common to all Mk.s and are there to help with separation when the tanks are jettisoned.

John   

 

Great stuff, thanks! 4 inches in 1:72 scale is 1.4 mm - from your photo it looks like the height is about one quarter of the length. They would have to be rounded though, right? Just to make it more difficult...ugh. 

 

I'm going to try a couple of things. Stay tuned.

 

Cheers,

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, 71chally said:

I've only just seen this thread Bill, I would definitely use the Xtrakit kit it's far superior to the Airfix effort which is a poor kit.

As you have the resin bits I don't think there is anything that I would even transfer across from the Airfix kit.

I've built both, and really enjoyed the Xtrakit, I hadn't noticed the length issue mind, which also afflicts the Matchbox kit (which I've done 5 of!)

 

IF there is a length issue I would sooner make it up, maybe a plasticard insert between the fuselage and opening nose section.

 

That rear fuse strengthening plate can be made by using very thin plasticard cut to shape and applied over the right area.

 

Vortex generators, I will wait in anticipation!

It's all down to what you fancy I guess James, I much prefer the Airfix kit despite all the problems with it, I don't know what it is, but I just prefer working on it. As yet I've not built one as a PR.9 though :) 

John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem for me John is that the Airfix issues are far harder (for me at least) to rectify, those horrendous ploughed in panel lines being the killer for me.

as is the fictitious tailplane to fuselage junction. The fin error is more correctable.

I've built all iterations of the Airfix Canberra, the B(I).8 is the only one that stands out as it's the best game in town.

 

I'm surprised by that length anomaly, will check all my kits tomorrow including the Highplanes and Matchbox ones.

 

 

Hope the Vortex gens won't drive you mad Bill!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, as strange as this sounds I'm going to build the Airfix kit. I've made this decision primarily due to the aftermarket accessories, since they fit the Airfix kit better than they do the Xtrakit. This is particularly true with the flaps.

 

(With respect to Xtrakit, I was able to make some vortex generators using my punch and die set, taking "bites" out of the edge of thin styrene strips to produce tiny, and I mean tiny, rounded blades. I was then able to glue some onto a test surface satisfactorily. I went ahead and made about 100 of these little buggers hoping to find enough usable parts for each wing - 33 per wing according to Airfix. The difficult part was making the parts consistently the right size - I made a little jig to hold the die and to feed in the strip of styrene, but the size still varied a lot. I think this technique needs to be worked on further - but in the meantime I saved all the little parts I made in case I want to use them in the future.)

 

I'll use my references to add additional detail to the Airfix kit as required and, hopefully, to address some known issues:

 

  • Inaccurate filet radius on tail fin
  • Starboard engine exhaust on wrong side of nacelle
  • Missing navigator's hatch
  • Trailing edge of outboard flap should contain lip of upper wing
  • Missing vortex generators on bottom of wings
  • Drop tank is for B(I).8
  • Missing rudder actuator
  • Inaccurate rudder
  • Inaccurate tailplane root/fuselage join (not much one can do about this)
  • Missing three stengthening (?) strips lower fuselage aft of bomb bay each side
  • Missing small intake leading edge of inboard wings
  • Needs wing tip mods for XH134 
  • Missing intake scoop/exhaust vent (can't tell from photos) under front inboard wings
  • Numerous lumps, bumps, probes, antennae, and intakes

 

Seems like a big list, but most individual issues are fairly minor. It's surprising that Airfix missed all this stuff though. I don't have any good drawings that show panel line detail, but I can always use the Xtrakit parts as a template (assuming they're accurate - a big assumption!). 

 

I'll tackle the Xtrakit build someday - I'm thinking a silver PR.9 would look pretty cool. :)

 

I've started by painting the cockpit - namely that gigantic hunk of resin from Pavla. Canberra cockpits were black, and I'm really afraid of losing all that great detail that Pavla cast into the resin if everything is painted black. Accordingly, I'll use Modelling Trick of the Month Club Tip #778, where one paints a "black" pit with dark grey. I chose Gunze H339 FS16081 Engine Grey which is similar to Extra Dark Sea Grey but more neutral. Select details will be actual black, and a black wash will be used to provide shadows and contrast. Once this whole mess is installed in the fuselage, and is nicely nestled in the dark shadows, I think the details will not be lost.

 

Because I plan on having the nose open, there is no room for weight in the radome or navigator's area. All the weight will go behind the cockpit above the nose wheel well. It's likely that there won't be sufficient room there for enough weight to keep the plane on its nose wheel. If that's the case, maybe I can do the wheel chock trick again - it worked great on the Tigercat!

 

Cheers,

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good work on the vortex generators Bill. In the list of corrections one you needn't worry about is the line on the upper wing for the inner flap, this is not applicable for the PR.9. As yet I've not done an in-depth studdy of the panels but I will take a look.

John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am a complete idiot.  Hang on, no I'm not, some of the bits are missing!

 

I spent a lot of yesterday standing directly under XH171 and didn't take a single photo of her!  I won't be going back to Cosford for a while either, more's the pity.

Share this post


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

I am a complete idiot.  Hang on, no I'm not, some of the bits are missing!

 

I spent a lot of yesterday standing directly under XH171 and didn't take a single photo of her!  I won't be going back to Cosford for a while either, more's the pity.

Not at all, I'vedone the same many times. But I do have a ton of photos of her on my site.

John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excuse me, is this the viewing gallery?

 

I see Tomo over there by the bar, if its virtual Tomo I'll have a pint of Ansell's mild ta

 

Is 134 the beauty I've driven past quite a few times at Marham, lovely machine

 

I'll be by the bar

 

;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know this solution probably wont be taken seriously.

 

Having looked at the photos and seeing just how fine the panel lines look, I say build up the airframe, hose it down with gray automotive primer, wet sand it back down to bare plastic, leave the panel lines be, and roll the dice.

 

david

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 03/02/2017 at 7:05 PM, stever219 said:

As an aside I wonder if the Xtrakit designers didn't factor in the 14" extra fuselage length of all of the PR Canberras and worked to the 65 foot-odd length of bombers and trainers.

Essentially that was the mistake the Matchbox kit made, but thankfully not on the Xtrakit.  When compared to Airfix B(I).8 and Highplanes B.2, the Xtrakit has the correct length difference ahead of the wings.

 

On 03/02/2017 at 2:03 AM, Navy Bird said:

I don't know if Airfix is long or Xtrakit is short at this point. However, if I can believe on-line sources, and John can correct me if they're wrong, the PR.9 has an overall length of 20.36 m. That translates to 282.8 mm in 1:72 scale. If I add up the length of the nose, fuselage, and the tail cone, the overall length for Airfix is 282 mm, pretty much right on the money. The Xtrakit is 279 mm, or 3.8 mm too short and it seems to be up front (nose gear well, wing roots, and tail align well between the two makes).

 

Probably all a bit too late now Bill, but I've just measured my Xtrakit fuselage in three different ways, the individual parts added up, all taped together, and all put together on paper and using pencil lines and proportional dividers, and it measures just a smidge over 281mm.

The real aircraft is 800 inches long, converted to 72nd that works out as 282.2mm, the kit is literally only 1mm too short, and that maybe down to the rear RWR bullet.

My Airfix PR.9 is at work, so can't measure that one yet.

 

The main problem is that the Airfix kit is a compromise, to get as many variants from it as possible.

I've attached this shot, just to show how different the Xtrakit and Airfix detail is from each other, and the odd tailplane positioning of the Airfix kit

31937515754_84cecd756c_c.jpgXtrakit & Airfix Canberras by James Thomas, on Flickr

 

I only ever make silver or gloss camo 9s, Hemp being the work of the devil!

I want to do a Systems III PR.9 next, but can find few pictures of the rear bulge.

 

Talking of missed opportunities, I took a whole lot of detail pics of XH135, including Vortex gens and deployed airbrakes etc, only to subsequently delete everything on the memory card -  a hard lesson that one!

 

Poise wise Shoving some weight in behind the engine compressor faces might help.

Anyhow, the Airfix kit still builds nicely and I know if anyone can make a blinding build from it, you can!

Edited by 71chally

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should be able to cram a fair bit of weight into the fronts of the engine nacelles Bill.

 

Martian

Share this post


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

Well, as strange as this sounds I'm going to build the Airfix kit. I've made this decision primarily due to the aftermarket accessories, since they fit the Airfix kit better than they do the Xtrakit.

  • Inaccurate tailplane root/fuselage join (not much one can do about this)

Cheers,

Bill

 

Not impossible, but certainly not easy.

 

The whole tailplane moves to allow trimming of the aircraft in pitch, to the eye the tailplanes appear to simply butt up to the fuselage tail assembly. 

Technically, it's more involved than that though.  The tailplane assembly is hinged at it's forward spar to allow it to travel up and down. The Fuselage has a cutout to allow for this movement which is why you can see a gap under the tailplane when it is in neutral - to trim up position. 

The small section of fuselage above the tailplane is mounted to it, and moves with it, but has a slot in the top to avoid the fin rudder assembly.

Their is a tailplane leading edge root fairing fixed to the fuselage.

 

Hopefully these illustrate what I mean, you can see how the fuselage section above the tailplane moves with it, from just ahead of the national markings on the fin - to the break point with a white painted aft face. The fuselage adjacent to the elevators is fixed

32741353156_7aea3cbbd0_c.jpgCanberra T.4 WJ874 by James Thomas, on Flickr

 

32658620171_5293ed7605_c.jpgCanberra T.4 WJ874 by James Thomas, on Flickr

 

The Airfix tailplane junction is molded into the fuselage, this can be completely removed as it is solid plastic, and shaped to conform with the fuselage. The easier fix would be to butt join the tailplane halves into the existing slots.  The tailplanes themselves will need plasticard adding at the join to compensate for the loss of span with the removed fuselage plastic, and I think the slots need to be lower just a touch.

 

The difficult, but ultimately more satisfying route is to make the whole tailplane assembly as EE did. Make it in one piece by using a box structure (the included tabs will help here) between the two halves, and the front spar (the tailplane hinge point, remember) and the elevator hinge line.  Cut out the corresponding section in the fuselage.

this will allow for both a better appearance and the mount the tailplane in a desired trim position.

 

Back of envelope drawing

 

32782358395_acfc8fd20a_c.jpg030 (2) by James Thomas, on Flickr

 

However, I haven't done this yet, and I know it sounds like babble!

 

 

Edited by 71chally

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/8/2017 at 02:17, canberra kid said:

Good work on the vortex generators Bill. In the list of corrections one you needn't worry about is the line on the upper wing for the inner flap, this is not applicable for the PR.9. As yet I've not done an in-depth studdy of the panels but I will take a look.

 

Thanks, John, I would love to have a set of drawings that show the (major) panel lines. I'll see if I can conjure up a photo of the vortex generators on the test surface. Might be good for a laugh!   :) 

 

As far as my list of issues, the one that I don't have to worry about is "the line on the upper wing for the inner flap." If you mean the potion of the flap trailing edge that is the lip of the upper wing, the CMK resin parts have this correct. They only have that lip on the outboard flaps.

 

On 2/8/2017 at 05:31, perdu said:

Excuse me, is this the viewing gallery?

 

No sir, this is the drinking gallery!    :drink:

 

On 2/8/2017 at 06:08, David H said:

I know this solution probably wont be taken seriously.

 

Having looked at the photos and seeing just how fine the panel lines look, I say build up the airframe, hose it down with gray automotive primer, wet sand it back down to bare plastic, leave the panel lines be, and roll the dice.

 

Actually, that is pretty much the same technique I always use to de-emphasize panel lines. I use Alclad grey primer, which is pretty much the same as automotive primer. Even smells the same to me. Depending on the depth of the panel lines, sometimes this technique requires more than one iteration. 

 

On 2/8/2017 at 08:43, 71chally said:

Not impossible, but certainly not easy.

 

<snip>

 

However, I haven't done this yet, and I know it sounds like babble!

 

Thanks for that explanation, I wasn't familiar with how the real system worked. Those crazy aerospace engineers think of the most bizarre stuff sometimes.

 

 

Hopefully, I will make some progress today on the cockpit. At first glance, the dark grey I chose doesn't seem dark enough but I think it will be better once everything is assembled. At that point, it's too late to change it however! Ha! I love modelling.

 

Cheers,

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, 71chally said:

I've attached this shot, just to show how different the Xtrakit and Airfix detail is from each other, and the odd tailplane positioning of the Airfix kit

 

That is the Airfix B(I).8 fuselage, correct? It doesn't have the day/night indicator windows up front.

 

Cheers,

Bill

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...