plasticplanes Posted June 5, 2017 Share Posted June 5, 2017 Hi! I need some advice from those of you that are familiar with the Alley Cat Canberra conversion sets. I like the mean look of the T.17 Canberra and recently found a Classic Airframes kit at my local store. I had my doubts about it, but when offered it for free if i bought the new Airfix (10101A) i jumped the deal. Now I wonder what is the best way to ending up with a T.17. Somehow use the CA nose on the Aitfix kit or scrap the CA kit and get the Alley Cat conversion? If anyone of you has ever used the Ally Cat set on the modern Airfix kit I would appreciate any word on the experience. From my understanding the Ally Cat set is designed before the new Airfix came around, and probably to fit another kit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
71chally Posted June 5, 2017 Share Posted June 5, 2017 Personally speaking, I wouldn't bother with the Airfix kit for T.17 build, it has many issues. The Classic Airframes Canberra kits are nice, I haven't got the T.17, just the TT.18, the only outstanding issue in my eyes is the slightly tall nosewheel leg which gives the whole kit the wrong stance if not corrected. It is harder to build than the Airfix, but the shape is good, detail is much more subtle, and it has nice resin bits, it doesn't suffer the glaring issues and heavy detail of the Airfix Canberra. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stever219 Posted June 5, 2017 Share Posted June 5, 2017 The Airfix/Alley Cat route involves a lot of work, most of it dealing with the inadequacies and inaccuracies of the Airfix kit. I don"t have the Alley Cat T.17 conversion but others that I do have (T.4, T.11, PR.3) involve minimal butchery of the Airfix parts, much of which falls on the kit's too prominent) panel lines. The CA kit may well produce a more visually pleasing result straight from the box, but I believe that there are some inaccuracies of its own (cue intervention from Canberra Kid with full "how to correct" and detail variations low-down). Before the Airfix and CA Canberras the only other serious 1/48th Canberra that I can think of is John Adams' beautiful multi-media Aeroclub offering which, sadly, is long out of production and everything's ng that the Airfield x offering should have been. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Cornes Posted June 5, 2017 Share Posted June 5, 2017 If I were you I'd contact Canberrakid on B. John is the IPMS Canberra SIG leader and what he doesn't know isn't worth knowing. For what its worth I'd say that you are very lucky to have the CA kit for free and I would just build it but I would definately recommend that you PM'd John because he has comprehensive knowledge of all of the 1/48th kits and the best way to get the best results. Cheers Simon 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Des Posted June 5, 2017 Share Posted June 5, 2017 (edited) Depends what you are looking for , the Airfix/Alley Cat kit can provide a pleasing model but maybe not one that will leave the 'experts' gasping in awe and amazement. I have not seen any of the Classic Airframe Canberra kits to comment on them specifically but those that I own , the Wyvern and a twin-seat Meteor , are a mix of good and less good with the occasional little bit of awkward that seemed to typify the range and most definitely do not fall together out-of-the-box. However I have built a pair of Airfix Canberra using Ali's conversions for the T.17 and the PR.7 and found that both conversions worked out well for me and provided reasonable likenesses of both aircraft that met my goals although my rather rushed approach would never win any prizes. The Alley Cat instructions are easily followed and even although I was not too surgical with the razor saw when making room for the new nose and replacement canopy everything came together well enough with the help of a little filler. My results follow - Edited June 5, 2017 by Des 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antti_K Posted June 5, 2017 Share Posted June 5, 2017 Hello plasticplanes! I've built both the CA and Airfix B.2 kits. I would use the canopy and some resin parts from the CA and all the rest from Airfix. For example the dihedral of the wings in CA's kit is too great. The nose conversion was simple. Cut the Airfix kit along the panel line and the radar nose fits nicely. Of course you should check it before cutting... Here are some "notes" of my Tp 52 (T.11) in Swedish Air Force colours. Contact John (Canberrakid) as he has original manuals, drawings...everything a Canberra fan needs. Best Regards, Antti 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
71chally Posted June 5, 2017 Share Posted June 5, 2017 (edited) You've done a blinding job in correcting that Airfix fuselage Antti, especially how you've reworked the tailplane to tailcone junction. I still say that the CA kit is far and away better than the Airfix kit, even if you take the task of filling and rescribing all those panel lines, and that's before correcting the fin fillet shape and and tailplane issues, and some of the poor features such as the rear crew windows arrangement. I guess it ultimately comes down to whether you want to go for a more straightforward build, but needing many corrections, or a harder build with much less remedial work. Personally speaking I prefer the second option there, and if I had a T.17 in the stash I would build that. I haven't noticed the wing dihedral being too great, but that can be re-set quite easily, especially given that the wings are butt joined on the CA kit. Some links to the CA kit reviews, http://hsfeatures.com/features04/canberramk20bg_1.htm http://hsfeatures.com/features04/canberrat17bg_1.htm Though I'm nowhere near Johns stratospheric levels of 'Canberra craziness', I did grow up with them, have access to manuals and volunteer worked on them. I'm sure the @canberra kid will be along soon enough Edited June 5, 2017 by 71chally 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antti_K Posted June 5, 2017 Share Posted June 5, 2017 12 minutes ago, 71chally said: You've done a blinding job in correcting that Airfix fuselage Antti, especially how you've reworked the tailplane to tailcone junction. Thank You James It really was quite a job to finish this model. There wasn't a single piece you could use straight from the box. The canopy is badly out of shape, so I made a "collar" out of styrene to raise the rear edge. The side view is now somewhat correct but the lowest "edge" of the canopy should be further backwards when viewed from the side. 17 minutes ago, 71chally said: I haven't noticed the wing dihedral being too great, but that can be re-set quite easily, especially given that the wings are butt joined on the CA kit. I meant the outer wing dihedral. At the wing root dihedral is good but it is noticeably too great outside the engines. So you need to cut the outer wings off and then re-attach them. At least this was the case with my CA B.2. Best Regards, Antti 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canberra kid Posted June 5, 2017 Share Posted June 5, 2017 (edited) Ummmm, that's a question, I agree with almost all James has said, but for me I still prefer the Airfix kit as a build but that's just me. The CA T.17 is very accurately detailed, it has the access doors on the "bomb bay doors" the other detail is accurate B.2 which is good, it does lack some of the minor mods but nothing big. The biggest issue I have with the CA Canberra other than the less than easy build is the aerofoil section of the wing, which is too flat, it may sound a bit picky but to my eye it spoils an otherwise very good kit. If you have the Airfix B. and the CA T.17 I would graft the CA forward fuselage to the the Airfix kit and depending on how far you want to go with it start to correct the detail on the Airfix kit to better represent a B.2. The AtoZee nose is Ok I wouldn't personally use the canopy upper decking part, but again that's just me. I have a lot of photos of the T.17 inside and out on my site and apart from the PR.9 I have more AP's on this type than any other Canberra. Things you my find useful are. Page one T.17 album T.17 and T.17A 69 photos Page 3 T.17 Cockpit 51 photos and drawings. T.17 link The things you need to do to make a B.2 from the Airfix kit, not everything is applicable to the T.17 but the panel detail is A B.2 for uncle Sam And some early thoughts on the B.2 canopy issue The anatomy of the B.2 canopy Some things to mull over. This an unmodified Airfix B.2 with the AtoZee nose that I built for an ex 360 pilot. John Edited June 5, 2017 by canberra kid photo didn't lode 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antti_K Posted June 5, 2017 Share Posted June 5, 2017 Excellent info on the canopy John! When you compare the resin canopy with the drawing (and photos) you immediately notice that the curve at the front is too shallow and the highest point is too much forward making it look too "pointy" on top. The highest point should be behind pilot's head. I sanded the CA canopy down and more into shape as it looked too big and round. I'm tempted to switch the canopies between my B.2 and Tp 52. Hummm.... How about you John; have you noticed the dihedral on the outer wings of the CA kit? Best Regards, Antti 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
71chally Posted June 5, 2017 Share Posted June 5, 2017 Just a thought, if you are going to mix and match the two kits, wouldn't it be better to mate the whole CA fuselage to the Airfix wings, that way you would get around the awful tailplane junction and fin fillet shape issues as well? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antti_K Posted June 5, 2017 Share Posted June 5, 2017 James, it seems I need to check Hannants and eBay and start all over again. This may become an expensive night Best Regards, Antti 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
71chally Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 Excellent canopy references there John, I had missed those, hadn't appreciated that from above that the canopy is almost a pure circle. There is corrected canopy available from Mastercasters https://www.hannants.co.uk/product/MST48026 ,be interesting to know how it stacks up 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canberra kid Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 48 minutes ago, 71chally said: Excellent canopy references there John, I had missed those, hadn't appreciated that from above that the canopy is almost a pure circle. There is corrected canopy available from Mastercasters https://www.hannants.co.uk/product/MST48026 ,be interesting to know how it stacks up It's basically a cleand up version of the Airfix canopy James. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canberra kid Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 (edited) 23 hours ago, Antti_K said: Excellent info on the canopy John! When you compare the resin canopy with the drawing (and photos) you immediately notice that the curve at the front is too shallow and the highest point is too much forward making it look too "pointy" on top. The highest point should be behind pilot's head. I sanded the CA canopy down and more into shape as it looked too big and round. I'm tempted to switch the canopies between my B.2 and Tp 52. Hummm.... How about you John; have you noticed the dihedral on the outer wings of the CA kit? Best Regards, Antti Antti for such a simple shape, basically a circle, it's very complex I'm still trying to get my head completely round it. I've not really studied the CA wing yet if I get time I will take a look at mine, I like @71chally James's idea of grafting the Airfix wing to the CA fuselage. John Edited June 6, 2017 by canberra kid 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
71chally Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 (edited) @Antti_K if anything the CA dihedral may not be quite enough. Here's some comparison shots, unfortunately I've only got the Airfix PR.9 wing easily to hand to compare with. The Classic Airframes wing has less dihedral than the Airfix wing, measured at the aileron outboard edge (ie at same point on both wings), the CA wing is 4mm above horizontal and the Airfix wing 7mm. Classic Airframes and Airfix Canberra wings by James Thomas, on Flickr The actual Canberra wings have 2 degrees dihedral inboard, and 4 degrees of dihedral outboard of the engines. That is taken from the middle of the wings, or the upper and bottom joining surfaces of the kits wings. Some reviews say the CA wing dihedral isn't enough, it kind of looks good to me and I can live with it, but it is a fairly easy remedy to cut the lower wing half outboard of the engine nacelle, and shim with thin plasticard if I did want to increase the dihedral. Comparing the two aerofoils, again this isn't straight forward as I'm comparing with the greater chord Airfix PR.9 wing, but to me the CA aerofoil looks nearer the original, especially when compared with this picture in our walkarounds, Classic Airframes Canberra wing by James Thomas, on Flickr Airfix Canberra wing by James Thomas, on Flickr In fact the Airfix wing aerofoil looks like another work of fiction to me, especially when you compare to a real PR.9 section, Though hard to quantify, the CA canopy shape definitely looks closer to the original to me. In my personal opinion, on balance I really can't see a good reason to mix and match the kits to make the T.17, the CA kit is harder (or more fun!) to put together, but you will be making just as much work mixing the two kits together. It obviously all comes down to personal choice aswel. Edited June 7, 2017 by 71chally 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canberra kid Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 Two drawings to mull over until I can get chance to get to my kits and T.O.'s John 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canberra kid Posted June 10, 2017 Share Posted June 10, 2017 (edited) I've had a look at the Airfix and CA, the two compare very well in plan with just a minor discrepancy in the shape of the tip, which one is right I can't say yet but I suspect CA is the better of the two. It's not all good news though, the CA falls short in chord, it comes in at 18'7" the Airfix wing is spot on at 19' dead. I can't look at the dihedral yet as my unmade CA wing very warped. I still think the Airfix wing is more accurate in the representation of the RAE "D" aerofoil section, but that's just my feeling. The red line is the position of the CA wing. Some more drawings, some flying some static, how representative of the RAE "D" aerofoil section the drawings are I can't vouch for. I will try to have a look through the RB.57D T.O.'s I think they have an accurate drawing of the aerofoil section, but I may be wrong . John Edited June 10, 2017 by canberra kid missing word Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticplanes Posted June 11, 2017 Author Share Posted June 11, 2017 Thanks for all you information. The amount of detailed information that is surfacing is impressive! I want to make the build as straightforward as possible and for me that rules out building a CA kit. Puttying and sanding is just an uphill hike to the great paint booth peak I'm thinking the right way to go about this is to use as much as possible of the Airfix kit, get the T17 nose from AlleyCat and maybe the canopy out of the CA kit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canberra kid Posted June 11, 2017 Share Posted June 11, 2017 @plasticplanes this is another shot of the Airfix B.2 with the Ally-Cat nose and no other significant mods John 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antti_K Posted June 12, 2017 Share Posted June 12, 2017 Thank You James and John for the pictures Okay, it seems that the wings in my CA kit and James' kit are "different". Interesting... In my CA model one can see the other wing tip over the fuselage; the dihedral is that great. It completely ruins the looks. Also the nose underside is too straight when viewed from the side. It should curve upwards all the way from the nose gear well. But there was too little to work with. The PR.9 has different wing profile as the root chord is longer. So the profile should be different. But did Airfix get that right? I guess John has the answer I'm very excited about the idea of mixing these two kits. Best Regards, Antti 1 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