Killingholme Posted March 7, 2023 Share Posted March 7, 2023 I've always wanted a PR7 Canberra in my collection, so interested in your progress. I remain convinced that the Canberra is a massive blind spot in the modern injection kit industry. Great to see your model coming together. It's great to see confidence in eschewing the current trend for manufacturers to utilise deeply inscribed trenches to represent the panel joints on what were meticulously smooth airframes. Even today you'd be hard pushed to notice the panel lines on the Newark Air Museum PR7- and it's been parked outside since the 1970s! I'm only 10 minutes from Newark Air Museum's PR7 WH791, so if you need any detail photos, drop me a line. Will 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeeELL Posted March 7, 2023 Author Share Posted March 7, 2023 10 minutes ago, Killingholme said: I've always wanted a PR7 Canberra in my collection, so interested in your progress. I remain convinced that the Canberra is a massive blind spot in the modern injection kit industry. Great to see your model coming together. It's great to see confidence in eschewing the current trend for manufacturers to utilise deeply inscribed trenches to represent the panel joints on what were meticulously smooth airframes. Even today you'd be hard pushed to notice the panel lines on the Newark Air Museum PR7- and it's been parked outside since the 1970s! I'm only 10 minutes from Newark Air Museum's PR7 WH791, so if you need any detail photos, drop me a line. Will Hi Will, whilst I am presently focussing on my conversion from a ‘pick ‘n mix’ of parts, it would be straight forward for me to extend my forward fuselage in order to allow a PR7 to be created from the old Airfix B(I)6 kit - which was my initial plan, I’ve the kits nearby. Indeed, I could even incorporate some, at least, of the camera bays. When I last visited Newark I took loads of reference photos but I’ve mislaid the camera! The photos showed the ‘Green Satin’ aerial under the port (iirc) inboard wing which I need to add. Don’t know if you could photo that for me, I know the airframe is in a state where the staff do not want people under neath! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amos brierley Posted March 7, 2023 Share Posted March 7, 2023 Hello. Have you had a look at this post from David Womby. Early Canberra PR9 underwing patches (antenna?). It’s from 2019. Hope this helps. 😉 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeeELL Posted March 8, 2023 Author Share Posted March 8, 2023 I have attached the printed forward fuselage and fitted an Airfix B(I)6 canopy, which fits very well. The printed interior is a great ‘interference’ fit so, all in all, I am very pleased with the result. Sorry about the quality of the image. 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Killingholme Posted March 8, 2023 Share Posted March 8, 2023 Nice! The transition between parallel fuselage section and the tapered setion looks just spot on! Can't have been easy. Will Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amos brierley Posted March 8, 2023 Share Posted March 8, 2023 Hello everyone. Good reference material is always handy. How we come by this material is interesting. My own negative is a PR.7 WT538 of 13 Sqn RAF Greenham Common 11/06/1980. A Google search will bring up this image and interestingly the other side at this air show. 13 Sqn emblem on the fin is sadly the only colour for this aircraft, my old Squadrons of 20 and 79 being much more expansive in expression. Love this series of books, quality photos and good information. WT519 of 100 Sqn shows off her attributes, I always thought that a PR.7 was just a B.2 with cameras……. I had a minute or two to kill this afternoon and too many thoughts. I thought that PR.7 had a bomb bay like all other Canberra’s , but , as TeeELL informed me there’s two separate bays. A look at this photo seems to show the hinge line being at different heights. And a fixed portion of structure in between. Thanks for looking. 😉 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeeELL Posted March 8, 2023 Author Share Posted March 8, 2023 The Green Satin is correctly identified. The circle behind the flare-bay are the stereo cameras, because this is a PR7 in 100 Sqn use the camera bays are covered to reduce drag (and because there are no cameras). No idea what the items are inside the other 2 circles - but I know someone who might! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheyJammedKenny! Posted March 9, 2023 Share Posted March 9, 2023 Great photos of the real thing, which give me proper references for the length of the flare bay. Also, the forward fuselage that @TeeELL printed looks outstanding! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheyJammedKenny! Posted March 9, 2023 Share Posted March 9, 2023 17 hours ago, amos brierley said: I always thought that a PR.7 was just a B.2 with cameras Actually, I understand that was a PR.3. A PR.7 was a B.6 with the same fuselage length as the PR.3 (14" extension). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeeELL Posted March 9, 2023 Author Share Posted March 9, 2023 25 minutes ago, TheyJammedKenny! said: Actually, I understand that was a PR.3. A PR.7 was a B.6 with the same fuselage length as the PR.3 (14" extension). Yes, thats correct. Strangely, having flown the B6 (in its guise as an E15) and the PR7, the fuel system controls looked similar but were completely different! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeeELL Posted March 9, 2023 Author Share Posted March 9, 2023 I am sorry that my posts are lacking photos but I am finding it challenging in reducing the size of my photos to fit! I’ve fitted all the ‘cameras’ into the fuselage halves and buttoned them up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeeELL Posted March 9, 2023 Author Share Posted March 9, 2023 Here is a view of the printed intakes 14 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheyJammedKenny! Posted March 10, 2023 Share Posted March 10, 2023 Fantastic! Starter cartridges were loaded into the nose of the intake face, right? Very convincing detail on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeeELL Posted March 10, 2023 Author Share Posted March 10, 2023 Certainly, the B6, PR7 and B8 had the ‘triple starter’ unit under the intake cone whereas the B2 & T4 had the single shot starter. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeeELL Posted March 10, 2023 Author Share Posted March 10, 2023 OK everyone, there has been a bit of a hiccup in the construction and it may take a little while to resolve. Last night, or rather ‘silly o’clock’ this morning, I thought there might be an error in the components ‘Canberra kid’ had used and had sent me in the construction of the longer PR7. ’Canberra kid’ used the longer B-57 fuselage and extended after-market forward fuselage parts to achieve the lengthened PR7. However, the 2 ‘extensions’ when added together create a model, potentially, a scale 12” too long! The conversion needs only the B-57 OR the extended fuselage to achieve the 66’ 6” scale length. If I fit ‘my’ 3D printed forward fuselage to the old Airfix B6 kit (fuselage cut immediately behind the NW bay) the scale length is just about ‘spot on’. Whilst I clearly have a suitably trimmed B6 fuselage (and it has some advantages over the B-57) I have cut out all the camera ports and fitted the ‘cameras’ to the B-57 fuselage. I await further advice from ‘Canberra kid’ - but this is the UK and we had snow ‘oop north’ last night so total chaos on the roads! ‘Canberra kid’ lives in an area where snow fell so isn’t able to check just now. I will post an update as soon as I’ve some clarification. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeeELL Posted March 10, 2023 Author Share Posted March 10, 2023 Looks like things are not quite as bad as my early morning ‘worry’ suggested. I have done some significantly more accurate measurements and discovered that the conversion I am undertaking is only 1.4mm too long. As I need to print a revised forward fuselage anyway, all I need to do is ‘remove’ 1.4mm from the rear of the CAD. I have been asked for a copy of my fuselage for a FROG B(I)8 to PR7 conversion there are dimensional differences requiring an upscaling of my fuselage by 103.7%, readily achieved with a couple of mouse clicks in the slicing software :-). 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amos brierley Posted March 10, 2023 Share Posted March 10, 2023 Hi TeeELL. The Green Satin details had piqued my interests in re-visiting Newark Air Museum, a look at my first set of photos shows the camera picking up on the belly of the aircraft the green reflection from the grass below. With this build, it’s highlighted the need for specific information. With myself not back into work until Wednesday next week I fancied a trip out. …….. A quick look at some 24hr news, reports that the M62 as being blocked and trouble’d by snow. Maybe I’ll have to wait a little while longer before going ‘over the tops’. ☃️ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichieW Posted March 10, 2023 Share Posted March 10, 2023 Glad the dimensional problem is not too severe and easily fixed. It must be a real labour of love modelling an aircraft you have actually flown. Richie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeeELL Posted March 10, 2023 Author Share Posted March 10, 2023 On 3/10/2023 at 3:23 PM, amos brierley said: Hi TeeELL. The Green Satin details had piqued my interests in re-visiting Newark Air Museum, a look at my first set of photos shows the camera picking up on the belly of the aircraft the green reflection from the grass below. With this build, it’s highlighted the need for specific information. With myself not back into work until Wednesday next week I fancied a trip out. …….. A quick look at some 24hr news, reports that the M62 as being blocked and trouble’d by snow. Maybe I’ll have to wait a little while longer before going ‘over the tops’. ☃️ Amos, I am planning on visiting Newark Air museum on Fri 24th. I took lots of photos on s previous visit, but on the camera I’ve misplaced. I need to try and finish my PR7 in the next week or 2 so if you do visit in the meantime I would be interested, especially if you can get measurements! (Not that the airframe is particularly safe to go under). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeeELL Posted March 15, 2023 Author Share Posted March 15, 2023 The latest print of parts ran over-night, taking around 5 hours to complete. Included in the print was a fuselage and interior for ‘Theyjammedkenny’ to fit the Frog fuselage. I had to increase the size by 103.7% but it will be a ‘fingers crossed’ situation as I do not have a Frog fuselage to undertake a check fit and Tjk lives across the pond. I will take some photos later. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kev67 Posted March 15, 2023 Share Posted March 15, 2023 Did your printed parts print OK, as always believed that they should be angled to at least 30-40 degrees or there about to get a good print Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeeELL Posted March 15, 2023 Author Share Posted March 15, 2023 19 minutes ago, kev67 said: Did your printed parts print OK, as always believed that they should be angled to at least 30-40 degrees or there about to get a good print I have printed them vertically and they seem fine. I will photograph them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeeELL Posted March 15, 2023 Author Share Posted March 15, 2023 These are the revised forward fuselages: These are front fuselages with some components that shouldn’t have been included. There are also the ‘interiors’ and, at the front, some seamless intake ducts for the Airfix 1/72 Javelin. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheyJammedKenny! Posted March 15, 2023 Share Posted March 15, 2023 Nice! They look absolutely the part! Now, the only question is whether the FROG nose transparency will fit. I also have a vac-form nose transparency, which, if I cut out a certain way, might have sufficient diameter to fit. What cement do you recommend using? I have Revell Contacta and Tamiya super-thin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeeELL Posted March 15, 2023 Author Share Posted March 15, 2023 Things are coming together: 10 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