Canberra T.4 from the old Airfix kit: is it possible ?

[Giorgio N]

Where the title should really if it's possible with limited work, as everything is possible with a lot of work

Anyway, how different is the T.4 nose from the basic bomber nose ? I found a couple of old Airfix B.6 kits at a local flea market before the lockdown and I'm considering options. I'd like to build one as a bomber and I've seen some clever ways to improve the lines of the nose here. I also have a Hi Planes kit that I may use as pattern to understand if I have to modify other things..

Then there's the second kit... part of me would like the build it as an export bomber, but I'm also intrugued by RAE's WJ992, that is a T.4. So the question is how different are the noses of the two variants ? If I want to build a T.4, can I simply glue the clear Airfix part in place, sand everything and paint over ? Or are the two nose sections substantially different in shape ?

Thanks in advance !

 

Edit: over 10,000 posts and I posted this in the wrong section... moderators, can anyone please move to the correct Cold War era section ?

Edited June 29, 2020 by Giorgio N

[Charlie Hugo]

The nose would need the removal of the clear view bombing panel. Biggest change is in the cockpit, two seats next to each other

[71chally]

The old Airfix Canberra kit is a B.(I)6, the T.4 was based on the B.2, so there will also be slight changes to the engine fronts, and the starter bullets should be smaller.

The mainwheels will be the wrong pattern, and I think they are hard to source the correct ones.

The kit gets the nose and glazing shape wrong anyway, so is a good candidate for reshaping.

However it is all doable in that scale, the nose shape is slightly different on the T.4, but it follows the contours of the bomber fuselage well.

 

If it was me, I would just build the kit as intended as a bomber and then recontour the nose by sanding and filling and then paint over as a whole to create the trainer.  I would then just add a seat next to the pilots'  seat and add the extar DV window to the canopy.

I would also end up sanding down the whole aircraft and maybe rescribing some light detail.

 

 

Will be worth you reading through this build thread, for Johns' @canberra kid advice

 

[John Aero]

The nose profile contours of the Canberra is the same throughout the family. The vertical profile also has the same contours as the side profile. What is different is the nose in side profile is angled down from a point just aft of the pressure angled bulkhead at Frame 12 (A/B), so all the frames of the nose portion are no longer perpendicular to the main fuselage centre line but they are now perpendicular to the nose axis.  This means that any drawings based on the old Ian Huntley drawing are quite wrong. Even the crew door and the important Frame 1 (One) are canted from the vertical. The transition is cleverly made in the area of the nose wheel bay. A similar side/ vertical profile change happens with the rear fuselage at Frame 27 A/B to frames 30/ 30A/ 31A/B

Frame 1 is where all the "funny" noses such as the T.II and T.17 change. This is the same Frame where the T.4 and PR.9 noses are fixed and articulated. Frame (1)  is of course not the first frame and Frame holding the clear nose  is  1.B

 

The T.4 nose and the B.2/6 and PR's share all the same contours, although the Bomb aiming flats mar the nose curve. The B.I.8 and PR.9 share the very same contours as the others but the pilot's seat is now in the same place as the old navigators ejection seat rail on the pressure bulkhead, but it is now raised much higher. Of course there are major internal changes but most of the frames remain the same, except in the latter versions the Toroidal Ring which supports the old "Bubbletop" canopy is removed.

The problem with the old Airfix kit is the nose is too bulbous for a start.

 

John

 

 

[Giorgio N]

Thanks everyone for the answers ! Sounds like I could realatively easily convert my bomber into a T.4 by simply adding some material on the lower flat bomb aiming window and then sanding to get a better, less bulbous shape. Definitely something to consider.

Or maybe....

 

1 hour ago, John Aero said:

The T.4 nose and the B.2/6 and PR's share all the same contours, although the Bomb aiming flats mar the nose curve. The B.I.8 and PR.9 share the very same contours as the others but the pilot's seat is now in the same place as the old navigators ejection seat rail on the pressure bulkhead, but it is now raised much higher. Of course there are major internal changes but most of the frames remain the same, except in the latter versions the Toroidal Ring which supports the old "Bubbletop" canopy is removed.

The problem with the old Airfix kit is the nose is too bulbous for a start.

 

John

 

 

John, does this mean that the shape of the PR.9 nose is the same of the T.4 ? Speaking of shape only of course, I understand that structurally they would be different.

If they are the same shape, I may "clone" the nose in resin from a PR.9 and glue it onto the airfix fuselage. I understand that this would need some more reshaping and yes, there would be plenty of detail differences as mentioned by James. I'm thinking of getting B.2 wheels by copying the Hi Planes parts while IIRC the starter fairings are available in resin from the same company.

And of course I would have to modify the cockpit, that in the Airfix kit would require work anyway...

 

[71chally]

From memory I don't think there is much of an optical flat panel on the old Airfix kit.

I'm not familiar with all the Hi Planes Canberras, but my T.17 didn't have the correct B.2 type wheels.

you should end up with something like this for a T.4,

Canberra B.2 type main wheel by James Thomas, on Flickr

 

Wheels have always been an issue with canberra kits.

 

 

 

BTW, with the Airfix 1:48 Canberra T.4, I believe there isn't a new nose cone in the kit, you just build it as a bomber and paint over the nose - complete with the flat bit!

 

 

 

 

Edited June 29, 2020 by 71chally

[John Aero]

Giorgio.

 

Yes a spare PR.9 nose would be ideal. The Matchbox kit,  which has so much wrong with it. would be a good sacrifice. 

 

The following which I wrote some time ago might be of some interest.

 

John

 

Tech notes on Canberra’s

 

There seems to be some confusion over the differences between Canberra versions, perhaps this will help. Although the overall lengths may differ and canopies change, the basic nose profiles do not change in plan and side views.

 

B.Mk.2

 This was the first production Canberra, powered by the Avon 101 which had the single breech cartridge starter.  Three crew ,Pilot, Nav and Observer/Bomb aimer, are all in ejection seats. The Pilots seat at the front slightly offset under the goldfish “bubble top” and two crew in the back. 

There is also a folding Rumbold seat for a forth crew member with a chest parachute.      The nose is glazed with an offset clear vis panel . this is the most common base for all later “funnies” like the T.11, T.17. TT.18 etc.  It has radial spoked main wheels.

 

B57A

This is an Americanized B.2 built by Martin and was powered by licence built British, Armstrong Siddeley Sapphire engines  (J65) There were also local airframe production changes.  The later 57’s are a totally different beast based on the Canberra airframe.

 

PR.3

A Photo /recce development of the B.2 but with a 14.5 inch extension for cameras in the fuselage, inserted in front of the bomb bay, which was smaller because of extra tankage and now termed a flare bay.  It had a plain glazed nose.

 

T.4

This is the Trainer derivative of the B.2 and is recognized by an un-glazed metal nose cap and the three EJ seats are re-arranged with two seats under the” bubble top”  (a pantomime to get into) and one seat at the back.  It also has two DV windows in the “bubble”.  The nose swings to one side for equipment access at Frame 1 (which is not the first frame). A version for export called the T.13 of which early examples did not have ejection seats for the pilots.

 

 

At rest the T.4's elevators are depressed because of the locking bar fitted to keep the stick forwards to allow the swing seat operation. Conversely the bomber versions elevators are up when no tail locks are fitted.  The seats in the T.4 are 3CT's and are similar in layout to the Mk.2 in the Nav’s position but don't have thigh guards. (Note They are not the same as a Mk.3 fitted in for instance, a Hunter)

 

If you use this info anywhere I would appreciate it if you would credit me as this is my authorship.

 

 B.Mk.6

 

The B.6 introduced the Avon 109 with a new triple breech starter.  This has a larger pointed centre body in the intake (the early 3 shot type is quite bulbous) it also has extra tankage in the wing leading edges. This made the aircraft heavier and called for larger stronger four spoke wheels.  Variations of the B.6 are the B.I.6  B.15 and B.16.

 

PR.Mk.7

This is the photo development of the B.6 and is a PR.3 extended fuselage layout with the Avon 109 and the  B.6 tank wing.  Two Crew.  RN TT.22’s are converted PR.7s. The clear nose has an optical flat.

 

B.I.8

The “8” introduced the offset fighter canopy and at first glance appears radically different but is really a “boy racer” B.6 with a belly gun pack and wing pylons.  The pilot has an EJ seat but the poor Nav does not. Instead he was given a chest type parachute and take off seat at the back and a sideward’s facing sliding seat in the nose, which had extra windows.   Both crew enter by the side door as on all previous Mk’s of Canberra.  The canopy does not open.

 

The pilots EJ seat is mounted on the pressure bulkhead on an extension of the standard navs EJ rail so he is further aft and higher than in all previous Mk’s.

 

PR.9

This is the GT version fitted with Avon 200 series engines which have a fickle Avpin liquid starter. The wings have extended tips and the chord is extended inboard of the engines on both leading and trailing edges.  The pilot has 3CS EJ seat under a B.I.8 style canopy which does open (clam shell style) and the Nav has an EJ seat (type 4 QS) which is buried in the nose.  Access to the Nav’s station is via a swinging nose (at Frame One) and the Nav has two tiny windows, a periscope, also a forked stick (to stick notes in to pass them back and up) to communicate with the pilot.   

 

The nose profile shape of all basic Canberra’s are the same regardless of which hole the pilot looks out of, despite what some drawings suggest.

 

Hope this helps

John

 

Crew access to the T.4. A pantomime in several acts.

 

The ground crewman unlocks the base of the second pilots seat and swings it forwards so, with no-one in the seat, it locks against the panel. (The top of the seat is hinged from a tubular beam so it swings in an arc).  The normal first pilots seat is also attached to this beam on the port (Left) side but it has been moved further over to port than in the Bomber versions.

 

The Nav crawls past into the back and straps in. 

 

The second seat is then swung completely further aft and locked at a steep angle so the way is clear for access to the port seat from the entrance door.

 

The first pilot climbs in past the stbd seat and straps in.

 

The second pilot now climbs in and straps into the aft angled seat, with his feet braced against the rudder bar plinth.

At a signal from him, the ground crewman now moves the seat back to it’s central base locking position, and all three crew are now in position and the crew side door can be closed.

At this point the Nav decides he does need a pee after all……..

 

Canberra brakes.

B.1
Wheel brake lever fitted to column centre boss

B.2
Wheel brake lever fitted to column centre boss

PR.3
Wheel brake lever fitted to column centre boss

T.4
Wheel brake lever fitted to each column centre boss.

B(I).6
As B.2 but Maxarets fitted.

PR.7
Wheel brake lever fitted to column centre boss

B(I).8
No wheel brakes on column. Maxarets with toe brakes instead

PR.9
No wheel brakes on column. Maxarets with toe brakes instead

B(I).12
No wheel brakes on column. Maxarets with toe brakes instead

T.13
Wheel brake lever fitted to each column centre boss

E.15
Wheel brake lever fitted to column centre boss

T.17
Wheel brake lever fitted to column centre boss

TT.18
Wheel brake lever fitted to column centre boss


Brake details via Ross Mc Neil restorer of Canberra PR.9 XH175

 

 

 

 

Putting it simply the Matchbox PR.9 kit is quite wrong.  The engine nacelles are the wrong shape, especially near the main spar.  Also the fuselage is B(I)8 length (too short) and the Frog "8" is PR.9 length for good measure.

 

The tailplane chord on the Matchbox kit is wrong being too wide, but it is an error made in good faith.  I found only a couple of years ago that the PR.9 AP Vol One,  has the wrong chord length given on the leading particulars page and this was taken as gospel by the late Maurice Landi, of Matchbox.  Someone at some time had messed up the AP dimensions.

 

The RAF never noticed and no-one ever checked it ,simply because the Canberra tail chord is always given as a projection to the a/c centre line and this is impossible to measure and it is a dimension which the RAF servicing types would never need to know. So it went unnoticed, until I got suspicious as I used to work on "9"s and started to project lines on photos.  This convinced me of the error but by then I had left the RAF. It was confirmed by the Eng WO of 39 Sqn who kindly had some guys measure the chord at the root for me. This confirmed that the tailplane was the same as all other Marks. As the "9" has an un-tabbed powered rudder, unlike all the other Mk's, there is a slight rudder chord difference but not enough to worry about.

 

I provided the basic outline shape drawings to Sword, who did the Hannants kit,  They were going to use Czech copies of the Aerodata 34 drawings which though beautifully drawn are inaccurate.

 

That’s it in a nutshell.

 

Regards

 

John

 

 

 

 

[71chally]

25 minutes ago, John Aero said:

Yes a spare PR.9 nose would be ideal. The Matchbox kit,  which has so much wrong with it. would be a good sacrifice.

Personally I would say not to, the Matchbox kit also gets the nose shape wrong being too 'beaky' or pointy. 

Also, you will have to hope that the Matchbox section will match the Airfix section.

I would honestly say that you're better off reshaping what you have with the Airfix kit, using visual guides and maybe profiles sections, if you're fussy. There's loads of plastic to play with.

 

For all its faults (what were they thinking with the engine nacelles!) though, I really like the Matchbox kit, unsure why, could be rose tinted specs and all that.  I enjoy building it (about 8 times now!), love the boxarts, decals seemed great for the time, surface detail is subtle, and quite a brave move to cover the PR.9 42 years ago.

Conversely I hate the modern Airfix kits, really sloppy work for a modern tooled product.

 

At the end of the day they all look like Canberras, and they can all be improved, but we really need some well thought out modern kits of this iconic type.

 

 

Edited June 29, 2020 by 71chally

[dalea]

Well I think it should be possible.

So far I've got:-

The Airfix kit

Freightdog tip tanks

Heritage T.4 conversion

Heritage wheels & wheel bay

Pavla wheel bay 

SBS rudder

SAC landing gear

Master pitot tube

 

Decals

 

Haven't decided what to do to the tailplane yet

[Giorgio N]

Thanks for the further information ! John. I'll sure mention you in case I'll ever discuss the info you provided. Not that I'm planning to write a book or anything, at best it will be a WIP on this forum.

I had not noticed the presence of the 2 DV panels on the T.4 canopy. Fortunately after having checked some pictures it seems something not too difficult to add to the model.

 

I have found in my archive a few pictures of a T.4 nose section... at some point yesterday it came to my mind that one was present at a reenactment show at Duncannon Fort in Co. Wexford in 2007 and I had taken some pictures. Here they are, please use them all for your personal use but ask me if you intend to use them otherwise.

 

 

 

 

I don't know how complete this cockpit was, in any case these will be useful whenever I'll decide it's time to build a T.4. And John, I can see what you mean when you describe the procedure to enter the cockpit... must have been crazy !

That is not the only one I have in mind... apart from the other Airfix kit, I also have the Airfix PR.9 and the High Planes B.2 kits in the stash. On the shelves are the Matchbox PR.9, the Airfix B(I).6 and the Frog B.8. I realize that I have way more Canberra kits and models than I expected ! Makes sense, while I'm not an expert or a dedicated Canberra enthusiast, I always rated the Canberra very highly, so much that I believe it was overall the best British aircraft of the cold war era.

[John Aero]

Giorgio,

 

Thank you for the photo heads up. I will certainly contact you should I wish to use them.

 

In the leading photo the triangular item at top right is in fact the Nav's desk top which is  clipped up for access. In the middle photo you can see the the tubular toroidal ring base of the canopy. The second 'dickie's' 3C seat is obviously missing. Even though the Observers seat was not fitted on T.4's the seat rail mount box is. I half remember the  large bolts were for ballast weights. There was a massive lump of lead under the Observers nose prone bed in the B.6.  I worked on B.2's, T.4's, B.6's, PR.7's and PR.9's but I only ever flew in B.6's.

 

They were the most uncomfortable aeroplanes especially on long trips. If you were in the forth Rhumbold folding seat, all you had was a Lancaster era Chest type parachute. The safety equipment brief was "don't clip it on upside down, cos you'll scratch a big hole in it before you hit the ground trying to find the 'D ring on the right"..

 

John

 

 

[71chally]

I'm going to say it as I don't think John will, but his various Aeroclub Canberra products are the most accurate out there.

I would love to get hold of the full 1:48th kit.

 

I don't think it's by accident that the Xtrakit/Hannants PR.9 is the most accurate either.

 

@Giorgio N There was an Aeroclub set to graft a trainer or accurate bomber nose to the old Airfix kit, but it's very hard to find now.

 

 

Edited June 30, 2020 by 71chally

[Paul Thompson]

5 hours ago, 71chally said:

 

@Giorgio N There was an Aeroclub set to graft a trainer or accurate bomber nose to the old Airfix kit, but it's very hard to find now.

 

 

Issued in more than one form IIRC- initially vac, then later injection moulded, - long time since I used one,  although I saw one go on Ebay at a reasonable price recently.  I don't know if it also came in resin, although there was a resin set from DB  latterly marketted under the Airwaves label, meant for use with the Italeri Martin B-57 (so it also had new engine fronts).

 

Anyone intending to use one of the Heritage sets, do have a good look before commiting yourself. The T.4 set I've used was appallingly cast, and bulged out one side. The resin used was not ammenable to heat treatment, and I spent much quality time having at it with knives and sandpaper.

 

 

Paul.

[Giorgio N]

12 hours ago, John Aero said:

Giorgio,

 

Thank you for the photo heads up. I will certainly contact you should I wish to use them.

 

In the leading photo the triangular item at top right is in fact the Nav's desk top which is  clipped up for access. In the middle photo you can see the the tubular toroidal ring base of the canopy. The second 'dickie's' 3C seat is obviously missing. Even though the Observers seat was not fitted on T.4's the seat rail mount box is. I half remember the  large bolts were for ballast weights. There was a massive lump of lead under the Observers nose prone bed in the B.6.  I worked on B.2's, T.4's, B.6's, PR.7's and PR.9's but I only ever flew in B.6's.

 

They were the most uncomfortable aeroplanes especially on long trips. If you were in the forth Rhumbold folding seat, all you had was a Lancaster era Chest type parachute. The safety equipment brief was "don't clip it on upside down, cos you'll scratch a big hole in it before you hit the ground trying to find the 'D ring on the right"..

 

John

 

 

 

Thanks for the additional information John, it's fascinating !

Of course I should have realised that one seat is missing.. well, at least this allowed a good view of the rear area. I remember from previous posts of yours that there's no really good Canberra ejection seat on the market, at least this picture should show me well what the rear seat is like when in place.. although very little would be visible in a 1/72 model and I guess I'll have to find a balance between detail, patience and final result

 

[Giorgio N]

10 hours ago, 71chally said:

I'm going to say it as I don't think John will, but his various Aeroclub Canberra products are the most accurate out there.

I would love to get hold of the full 1:48th kit.

 

I don't think it's by accident that the Xtrakit/Hannants PR.9 is the most accurate either.

 

@Giorgio N There was an Aeroclub set to graft a trainer or accurate bomber nose to the old Airfix kit, but it's very hard to find now.

 

 

 

I remember well the Aeroclub conversions. I always keep an eye for these on the various online channels, however any time one comes up for sale they go very fast. I've been outbid a few times on both Aeroclub and DB conversion sets, hopefully one day I'll get one.

In the meantime for my two Airfix kits I'm planning on using the Hi Planes fuselages as templates to correct the nose. For the T.4 I noticed that the Airfix PR.9 kit has a separate nose cone, I may clone this in resin if it's correct enough. I may also clone the whole fron fuselage sections of the HP kit, but IMHO it would be too much trouble, if I want a much better Canberra I should just get one of the AMP/Mikromir kits...

[Charlie Hugo]

These may help as well

Although it looks like a BI6 she actually started life as a T4. The nose of an ex RRhAf Canberra was grafted on to a T4 to give turn her into a bomber

 

http://www.wildaviation.com/gallery3/index.php/Walkarounds/saafjets/Canberra-BI6-ex-T4

[71chally]

4 hours ago, Charlie Hugo said:

These may help as well

What a superb resource!  Have never seen this before thank you for bringing to our attention.

That Canberra is certainly interesting as it has all sorts of lumps and bumps, looks like doppler was fitted? 

[Giorgio N]

18 hours ago, Charlie Hugo said:

These may help as well

Although it looks like a BI6 she actually started life as a T4. The nose of an ex RRhAf Canberra was grafted on to a T4 to give turn her into a bomber

 

http://www.wildaviation.com/gallery3/index.php/Walkarounds/saafjets/Canberra-BI6-ex-T4

 

Nice pictures, thanks for sharing ! It's a very thorough walkaround, let of details for us modellers.

I'm intrugued by the colour scheme, was this an operational scheme ? Looks overall PRU Blue to me

[Charlie Hugo]

Just now, Giorgio N said:

 

Nice pictures, thanks for sharing ! It's a very thorough walkaround, let of details for us modellers.

I'm intrugued by the colour scheme, was this an operational scheme ? Looks overall PRU Blue to me

Yes it is an operational scheme and is PRU Blue overall. All the SAAF Canberras went into this scheme later in their lives. No, or very few national markings either.

[Charlie Hugo]

And for a brief period these pics from the now defunct IPMSSA website

http://www.wildaviation.com/gallery3/index.php/Walkarounds/saafjets/Canberra-ex-IPMSSA-website#

[71chally]

The later service SAAF Canberras, and Buccaneers, looked very cool!

[Giorgio N]

2 hours ago, Charlie Hugo said:

Yes it is an operational scheme and is PRU Blue overall. All the SAAF Canberras went into this scheme later in their lives. No, or very few national markings either.

 

And I now realised that I had a few pictures of SAAF Canberras in that scheme... I must be getting old... 🤣

[rossm]

On 7/1/2020 at 5:23 AM, Paul Thompson said:

 

although there was a resin set from DB  latterly marketted under the Airwaves label, meant for use with the Italeri Martin B-57 (so it also had new engine fronts).

 

But it doesn't fit the Italeri kit 'cos the fuselage of that has too great a diameter. I want to build an RB-57A and got an Italeri B-57 and the Airwaves nose and it just doesn't work. @canberra kidwill likely confirm that it's not just me being incompetent (this time!).

 

I hope the Airwaves nose will correct the old Airfix kit lurking in the stash and maybe my Aeroclub injected correction set will fit the Italeri kit (it was too big for the Frog kit I tried it on many years ago). When I can get to the stash (400 miles away) I'll know and maybe I can release the Aeroclub full fuselage B6/T4 vacform conversion I have to hand. I'm reluctant to use that for the RB-57A if the injection conversion will work.

[canberra kid]

23 hours ago, rossm said:

But it doesn't fit the Italeri kit 'cos the fuselage of that has too great a diameter. I want to build an RB-57A and got an Italeri B-57 and the Airwaves nose and it just doesn't work. @canberra kidwill likely confirm that it's not just me being incompetent (this time!).

 

I hope the Airwaves nose will correct the old Airfix kit lurking in the stash and maybe my Aeroclub injected correction set will fit the Italeri kit (it was too big for the Frog kit I tried it on many years ago). When I can get to the stash (400 miles away) I'll know and maybe I can release the Aeroclub full fuselage B6/T4 vacform conversion I have to hand. I'm reluctant to use that for the RB-57A if the injection conversion will work.

The Italeri kit is a travesty all round, a better bet is either High Planes or the 'new' Airfix B(I)8 or with a bit more of an upgrade to the basic kit the best of the bunch the FROG B(I)8

John

[71chally]

On 6/30/2020 at 11:23 PM, 71chally said:

I'm going to say it as I don't think John will, but his various Aeroclub Canberra products are the most accurate out there.

I would love to get hold of the full 1:48th kit.

Look what turned up in the post on the weekend, well chuffed!

 

Aeroclub 1:48 English Electric Canberra B(I).6 by James Thomas, on Flickr