How to get a PR Canberra?

[rossm]

1 hour ago, rickshaw said:

Admittedly I have over 40+ years of experience building kits.  I'd actually rate them about on par with Frog kits of yesteryear, with resin enhancements.  They are only as difficult as you make them IMO.  To me, it seems just another kit.  Admittedly, I think that of most kits nowadays.

They're a bit like that until you hit an issue where the mouldings are a bit vague. My RB-57D was fine for me until the very last step. 2 attempts so far and it's still not right but I've run out of ideas as to where the source of the problem is. I certainly wouldn't recommend them to anyone brought up on Tamigawa, I started on 60s Frog and Airfix. Whether the more standard Canberras are better I don't know.

 

[TheyJammedKenny!]

I checked out the SIG web-site, and it's excellent.  Not a criticism, but if someone could find drawings that show the differences between the PR.7 and the B.6 fuselage in profile--with dimensions and possible frame additions--that would be excellent to post with the other illustrations on this resource.  If it's just a scale 14" plug, then that's pretty straightforward.  I liked the use of the PR.9 belly to modify a B.2 into a PR.7, and assume it was in 1/48 scale.

[canberra kid]

6 hours ago, TheyJammedKenny! said:

I checked out the SIG web-site, and it's excellent.  Not a criticism, but if someone could find drawings that show the differences between the PR.7 and the B.6 fuselage in profile--with dimensions and possible frame additions--that would be excellent to post with the other illustrations on this resource.  If it's just a scale 14" plug, then that's pretty straightforward.  I liked the use of the PR.9 belly to modify a B.2 into a PR.7, and assume it was in 1/48 scale.

Ok I'll sort some drawings out today. Yes it was 1/48 but the same would work in 1/72.

John

[canberra kid]

16 hours ago, TheyJammedKenny! said:

I checked out the SIG web-site, and it's excellent.  Not a criticism, but if someone could find drawings that show the differences between the PR.7 and the B.6 fuselage in profile--with dimensions and possible frame additions--that would be excellent to post with the other illustrations on this resource.  If it's just a scale 14" plug, then that's pretty straightforward.  I liked the use of the PR.9 belly to modify a B.2 into a PR.7, and assume it was in 1/48 scale.

If it's this build you were referring to? It's 1/72 1/72 PR,3 build I relay should get on and finish it.

John

[canberra kid]

17 hours ago, TheyJammedKenny! said:

I checked out the SIG web-site, and it's excellent.  Not a criticism, but if someone could find drawings that show the differences between the PR.7 and the B.6 fuselage in profile--with dimensions and possible frame additions--that would be excellent to post with the other illustrations on this resource.  If it's just a scale 14" plug, then that's pretty straightforward.  I liked the use of the PR.9 belly to modify a B.2 into a PR.7, and assume it was in 1/48 scale.

Two drawings I hope fit the bill? First up, PR.3, which is the same as the PR.7

And the B.6

John

[TheyJammedKenny!]

Thanks!  Yes!  These are excellent drawings.  The difference is quite noticeable!

[TheyJammedKenny!]

What's the distance, in 1/72 scale, between the affected frames, i.e. 12 and 12a?  

[canberra kid]

56 minutes ago, TheyJammedKenny! said:

What's the distance, in 1/72 scale, between the affected frames, i.e. 12 and 12a?  

If my maths is right it's 1/4 inch

John

[rickshaw]

On 11/30/2020 at 10:26 PM, rossm said:

They're a bit like that until you hit an issue where the mouldings are a bit vague. My RB-57D was fine for me until the very last step. 2 attempts so far and it's still not right but I've run out of ideas as to where the source of the problem is. I certainly wouldn't recommend them to anyone brought up on Tamigawa, I started on 60s Frog and Airfix. Whether the more standard Canberras are better I don't know.

 

I didn't have that problem on the WB-57E I made.  Admittedly it was the wings only from the WB-57 and the fuselage of a PR.9 from Airfix but it didn't sit excessively high.  I wonder if the undercarriage was correctly sited?  I expect so.  High Planes does occassionally do odd things with their kits upon occasion.

[rossm]

2 hours ago, rickshaw said:

I didn't have that problem on the WB-57E I made.  Admittedly it was the wings only from the WB-57 and the fuselage of a PR.9 from Airfix but it didn't sit excessively high.  I wonder if the undercarriage was correctly sited?  I expect so.  High Planes does occassionally do odd things with their kits upon occasion.

If you mean WB-57F then the wings probably came from a Mach2 kit. I've one of those on the go and the undercarriage location also seems vague but forewarned is forearmed. I've "invested" in some metal undercarriage for that which might make a difference.

[canberra kid]

3 hours ago, rickshaw said:

I didn't have that problem on the WB-57E I made.  Admittedly it was the wings only from the WB-57 and the fuselage of a PR.9 from Airfix but it didn't sit excessively high.  I wonder if the undercarriage was correctly sited?  I expect so.  High Planes does occassionally do odd things with their kits upon occasion.

I had the same issues with my 3 RB.57D's as @rossm had with his, High Plains are not an easy build, but they are far more accurate than any other kit or conversion out now. They do their own research and unlike the Mack2 RB/WB.57F they are not based on the woeful Italeri B.57B.

John

[canberra kid]

1 hour ago, rossm said:

If you mean WB-57F then the wings probably came from a Mach2 kit. I've one of those on the go and the undercarriage location also seems vague but forewarned is forearmed. I've "invested" in some metal undercarriage for that which might make a difference.

Hi @rossm unfortunately I don't think it will help with any sit issues as they are a direct copy of the Italei units, but the strength with be a huge benefit. I wonder if the sit issue comes from the fact the B.57's main u/c units could be extended on the ground to facilitate weapons loading. As for as I know this wasn't carried over to the D&F though. 

John

[rossm]

50 minutes ago, canberra kid said:

Hi @rossm unfortunately I don't think it will help with any sit issues as they are a direct copy of the Italei units, but the strength with be a huge benefit. I wonder if the sit issue comes from the fact the B.57's main u/c units could be extended on the ground to facilitate weapons loading. As for as I know this wasn't carried over to the D&F though. 

John

I didn't know that, it's a possibility. My next plan, if I can persuade the superglue to release, is to move the metal pins I put in for the axles. The High Planes undercarriage was a fine example of "state of the ark" limited run moulding from several decades back and needed much cleaning up, metal pins and plastic tubing just to mount it. Even so I'm pretty sure I aligned it as the kit intended at my first attempt and lower (but still not low enough) at the second attempt. One day I'll pluck up the courage to look in my HP B.20 kit to see if that's any better.

[rickshaw]

On 12/11/2020 at 6:10 PM, rossm said:

If you mean WB-57F then the wings probably came from a Mach2 kit. I've one of those on the go and the undercarriage location also seems vague but forewarned is forearmed. I've "invested" in some metal undercarriage for that which might make a difference.

Oops, that should have been just a B-57E, not a WB-57.  My apologies.