RidgeRunner Posted August 14, 2018 Share Posted August 14, 2018 (edited) Tell me I'm crazy or help me along the way, please . I want to eventually build a B-57E. However, I know the Airfix offering is not really worth considering and while the Italeri kit is okay it suffers from a poor back end ;), some forward fuselage issues, wrongly set wings and incorrect panel lining. Now I have one of the latter and I'm prepared to put the work in to getting her done but I wonder if it would be less painful and less messy to stick the Italeri nose on the front end of an S&M Canberra B.2 (which I have). That way most of the panel lining is recessed and correct already, the wheels are better(?), the backside is the correct shape, etc..... Any thoughts??? Thanks chaps. Martin Edited August 14, 2018 by RidgeRunner added text Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
72modeler Posted August 14, 2018 Share Posted August 14, 2018 I'm thinking @canberra kid will be along shortly- I will await his reply with great interest, as I have the same kits and a T11 on the way. Mike BTW- I still owe you big-time for the parts, John! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RidgeRunner Posted August 14, 2018 Author Share Posted August 14, 2018 A good plan. Thanks Mike. Now D-10 is done I'm getting my next two Republic's done and then maybe the B-57..... Let's see .,........ Martin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonoran Posted August 14, 2018 Share Posted August 14, 2018 What is your source of information on the Italeri kit? That's quite a list of problems, not a single one of which I have ever heard before today. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RidgeRunner Posted August 14, 2018 Author Share Posted August 14, 2018 (edited) 33 minutes ago, Sonoran said: What is your source of information on the Italeri kit? That's quite a list of problems, not a single one of which I have ever heard before today. It is based on a WIP on Britmodeller last year and his references to @canberrakid. Looking at the panels on the wings they look pretty generic, but then I'm not a Canberra expert. Martin Edited August 14, 2018 by RidgeRunner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canberra kid Posted August 14, 2018 Share Posted August 14, 2018 @RidgeRunner An interesting project Martin, yes it would be achievable, but a big task, it would make for a generally more accurate Canberra than the Italeri kit although the wings on the S&M kit aren't the best in fact I suspect they are quite close the the Italeri wing in plan? I'd be tempted to to keep the the S&M B.2 as is, or build it as an EB.57A which would be easier. Then look online for a cheep FROG or a repop B(I)8 use the wings and fuselage and Italeri nose from that for an even more accurate B.57 Canberra. This is how I did mine which is a wee bit more complex Early RB.57E build The wheels are wrong on all kits, no one as yet has done an accurate representation of the Martin main wheel and unless you do a pre 1974 EB.57E/B you will need to find some ESCAPAC seats. @Sonoran Take a look at this which I did some time ago, and the link to my RB.57E build above to give you an idea of what is wrong with it. It boils down to just about every thing apart from the nose/cockpit. but out of the box it looks like a Canberra give or take! italeri-1-72-b-57-canberra-musings John 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canberra kid Posted August 14, 2018 Share Posted August 14, 2018 3 hours ago, 72modeler said: I'm thinking @canberra kid will be along shortly- I will await his reply with great interest, as I have the same kits and a T11 on the way. Mike BTW- I still owe you big-time for the parts, John! My pleasure Mike, just happy to spread the Canberra love! 🙂 John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canberra kid Posted August 14, 2018 Share Posted August 14, 2018 2 hours ago, RidgeRunner said: It is based on a WIP on Britmodeller last year and his references to @canberrakid. Looking at the panels on the wings they look pretty generic, but then I'm not a Canberra expert. Martin Martin as you will see from my build the panel detail is quite diferant as are a number of the fuselage ones, apart from Classic Airframes 1/48 B.57B's no one has come close to getting it right. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canberra kid Posted August 14, 2018 Share Posted August 14, 2018 @Sonoran This photo shows the truncated backend caused by the wings being too far back compared to my corrected one. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RidgeRunner Posted August 14, 2018 Author Share Posted August 14, 2018 (edited) Thanks John. I reckon I'll follow your more expert advice and tackle the Italeri. I may adopt Cookies approach on the wings. Do you have a 3-view for the B-57 that you'd be happy to share? I will then get out the scriber and a spend a few Autumn nights scraping ;). i'll be building an early 1960s target tug so hopefully the seats will be okay. all the best, Martin Edited August 14, 2018 by RidgeRunner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canberra kid Posted August 18, 2018 Share Posted August 18, 2018 @RidgeRunner, I can send you some drawings. One thing you need to decide on Martin is which one you want to build, If you go for an EB.57B you may have to decide between a .50 Cal 4 gun wing or a 20mm Cannon wing, I'm not sure if any of the .50 Cal B's made it to the EB conversion but the FY number will tell you. If you go for the EB.57E you will need to modify the tail cone as I did with my RB.57E, all E's were 20mm Cannon armed. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rickshaw Posted August 18, 2018 Share Posted August 18, 2018 Personally, I'd use the High Planes Canberra/B-57 kits. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canberra kid Posted August 18, 2018 Share Posted August 18, 2018 6 minutes ago, rickshaw said: Personally, I'd use the High Planes Canberra/B-57 kits. Other than the RB.57D I've not built any of the HP B.57's. On the D the detail is generally quite good but is a bit inaccurate or missing in places, the fuselage shape wise is street's ahead of the Italeri kit! John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rickshaw Posted August 18, 2018 Share Posted August 18, 2018 11 minutes ago, canberra kid said: Other than the RB.57D I've not built any of the HP B.57's. On the D the detail is generally quite good but is a bit inaccurate or missing in places, the fuselage shape wise is street's ahead of the Italeri kit! John Personally, I am much more interested in the shape of the model and the colour scheme/markings that it wears, rather than any detail you believe should be on it. From my experience, all detail disappears after about 5 metres from an object and that includes aircraft. I don't believe you should outline panels, stuff like that - it all disappears generally. It is much more important to get the shape right and the markings correct IMO. I have built about half a dozen different Canberra models, most from High Planes. They are IMO streets ahead of all the others, most particularly Frog and Matchbox. Airfix is the next closest and Italeri after them. That I can go to High Planes and order an accurate Canberra B.2/B.6/B.20/B.21/T.4/B-57B/B-57D is IMO excellent. If I want an Airfix/Italeri/Matchbox/Revell/Frog one of any of the three or four versions they have made over the decades, I need to search around EvilBay/Second-Hand kit sellers to find them. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canberra kid Posted August 18, 2018 Share Posted August 18, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, rickshaw said: Personally, I am much more interested in the shape of the model and the colour scheme/markings that it wears, rather than any detail you believe should be on it. From my experience, all detail disappears after about 5 metres from an object and that includes aircraft. I don't believe you should outline panels, stuff like that - it all disappears generally. It is much more important to get the shape right and the markings correct IMO. I have built about half a dozen different Canberra models, most from High Planes. They are IMO streets ahead of all the others, most particularly Frog and Matchbox. Airfix is the next closest and Italeri after them. That I can go to High Planes and order an accurate Canberra B.2/B.6/B.20/B.21/T.4/B-57B/B-57D is IMO excellent. If I want an Airfix/Italeri/Matchbox/Revell/Frog one of any of the three or four versions they have made over the decades, I need to search around EvilBay/Second-Hand kit sellers to find them. They are good accurate kits, no arguments from me on that point, they are not an easy build so not every modeller would be happy taking one on, as for detail that is a matter of personal test, I can live with it or without it, but if it is there and I know what is right or wrong about it I want it right. If a manufacturer is going to do a lot of a type then they should do the best to get it right, unfortunately some fall way short of that as we all know! John Edited August 18, 2018 by canberra kid my phone can't spell 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rickshaw Posted August 19, 2018 Share Posted August 19, 2018 15 hours ago, canberra kid said: They are good accurate kits, no arguments from me on that point, they are not an easy build so not every modeller would be happy taking one on, as for detail that is a matter of personal test, I can live with it or without it, but if it is there and I know what is right or wrong about it I want it right. If a manufacturer is going to do a lot of a type then they should do the best to get it right, unfortunately some fall way short of that as we all know! John I agree that they are more "old school" than most more modern kits. I don't think they are appreciably more difficult to build though, if you have any sort of experience at building kits. Just needs a little more care and a little more trial and error before gluing. I wouldn't attempt one straight off the street as a newby, though, I agree. That an aircraft as well known as the Canberra, even today, still can't be got right by the likes of Airfix/Frog is IMO a worry. That it can be got right by a small-scale producer like High Planes suggests that the big companies need to extract their digits. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John R Posted August 19, 2018 Share Posted August 19, 2018 I have built a couple of HP kits, the Me 262 V1 and the Gloster E28/39 but not a Canberra, I put this comment in my RFI for their Me 262 prototype The kit has a ‘health warning’ on the box saying that it is for experienced modellers only and some cutting ,filling and sanding is required. Substitute ‘much’ for ‘some’ and that sums it up I suspect that this may well apply to the their Canberras but well worth the effort Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RidgeRunner Posted August 20, 2018 Author Share Posted August 20, 2018 (edited) You chaps are instilling fear in to me now ;). Having decided to go Italeri and scribe the panels I then changed my mind, favouring a S&M with an Italeri cockpit. Now HP! What'll I do? :(..... Then, once decided, how do I get the best B-57 wheels? Diameter and thickness most important as I think - just think - I could scratch them in to B-57 hubs..... I may be wrong!!!!! Martin Edited August 20, 2018 by RidgeRunner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canberra kid Posted August 20, 2018 Share Posted August 20, 2018 (edited) Hi Martin another big hole in the B.57 kit world, accurate wheels, the hubs in the Italeri kit are a very simplified attempt at them but they are more B.57 like than the other kits, but the tiers are a joke and not a very funny one at that! wrong profile and too small. These are the ones I first considered as replacements, right to left are, Italeri, Matchbox and Airfix B.57 non were were used in the end. In the end I decided to use the Italeri hub and insert it into a FROG tire, it looks like HP did something along the same lines with their B.57's. John Edited August 20, 2018 by canberra kid re written in English :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RidgeRunner Posted August 20, 2018 Author Share Posted August 20, 2018 Thanks John. A bit of a mire! ;). You didn't mention the S&M offering. Are they not okay, either? As I said, I have an S&M B.2 that I am now considering as the basis for a B-57B, or E, conversion. I don't have either a Matchbox or Frog kit :(. M Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canberra kid Posted August 21, 2018 Share Posted August 21, 2018 Sorry Martin I forgot, yes the S&M wheel should be ok from what I've seen if you do the hub swap. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RidgeRunner Posted August 21, 2018 Author Share Posted August 21, 2018 11 hours ago, canberra kid said: Hi Martin another big hole in the B.57 kit world, accurate wheels, the hubs in the Italeri kit are a very simplified attempt at them but they are more B.57 like than the other kits, but the tiers are a joke and not a very funny one at that! wrong profile and too small. These are the ones I first considered as replacements, right to left are, Italeri, Matchbox and Airfix B.57 non were were used in the end. In the end I decided to use the Italeri hub and insert it into a FROG tire, it looks like HP did something along the same lines with their B.57's. John Sorry John, one more thing. Have you transposed things in your post above. You say in the line up that the Italeri is on the left and that you used those hubs. However, you show the Airfix hubs in the lower image? Martin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canberra kid Posted August 21, 2018 Share Posted August 21, 2018 (edited) Hi Martin Right to left. Italeri, Matchbox, Airfix. which ever way round it's the Italeri hub and in my case FROG tire. John Edited August 21, 2018 by canberra kid Edit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RidgeRunner Posted August 21, 2018 Author Share Posted August 21, 2018 Silly me... I was automatically thinking Left to right! Thanks John. Martin 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canberra kid Posted August 21, 2018 Share Posted August 21, 2018 No problems Martin, we got there in the end, it was my fault going the wrong way 😊 John 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