Xtrakit Canberra PR.9 - anyone built theirs yet?

[kitnut617]

Hi,

I received an Xtrakit Canberra PR.9 in the mail this week and today I was having a good look at the plastic and studied the instructions to see if there was any real problems to worry about.  Everything looks fairly straight forward except I might have to guess how the front u/c goes together, it appears that there's no section on the instruction sheet which shows how this is done. I've written to Nigel Hannant to see if I'm missing a page. 

Anyone built theirs yet?

Robert

[van883]

Mostly but it lies abandoned in the loft as the jet outlets were short shot and warped and Hannants would not replace them, advising me to contact the manufacturer. I also asked one of their staff personally at a Duxford show and got a very offhand response.I think this is a rubbish attitude towards customers who buy a product they commissioned, and exclusively sell.

Van

[phoenix54]

Hi all,
      not a jibe, nor a 'Hannants bash' just to quote the U.K. "Sale of goods act 1978"
"Goods must be suitable for the purpose for which they are sold"
If you have a problem it is the RETAILERS RESPONSIBILITY to put it right, NOT the manufacturers.
The retailer, after sorting out the problem with the customer (exchange/refund)
can take it up with their wholesaler/supplier.
Would seem that Hannants need a metaphorical "kicking" or reporting to their local Trading Standards Agency,
as this is blatant, ignoring of the law of the land, no quible, no question and NO EXCUSE.
The above covers EVERYTHING you buy in the U.K. don't be told otherwise.

P.S. How long has this Cranberry been out?
Mmmm, watch next years 3rd quarter release lists!



Paul

[NARSES2]

You beat me to that Paul I was going to say the same thing - there was an item on TV last week about it, which totally re-inforced that it's the retailers responsibility

[Howard of Effingham]

should i cross kit this kit with the matchbox PR9 i have somewhere in my stash?

promise not to use the matchbox wings mind! 


   


  trevor 

[kitnut617]

Got one of those Matchbox kits too,  are there many differences between the two?

[kitnut617]

OK, I can answer my own question here as I found my Matchbox kit without having to delve into to many of the boxes which the stash is in.

Overall, apart from the better detail parts the Xtrakit has, the two kits are closely matched but there are a few differences. But first I should mention that in the history notes on the instruction sheet, it says the Xtrakit PR.9 was mastered from drawings provided by John Adams of Aeroclub.  I tend to go with whatever John has to say so I'm not going to argue the fact.

The two fuselages are very close to being the same, the Xtrakit is a smidgin longer (.5mm in the rear half) but there are some differences as to the size and position of the front u/c bay and the cockpit opening (but they are close), the wings seem to be in the same place as does the weapons bay.  The nose cones though are quite a bit different, the Matchbox nose being much more pointy but the length is almost the same. Fin and rudder are the same.  The Xtrakit provides a clear part for the camera bay in the lower rear fuselage behind the weapons bay.

Main wings are almost the same, some difference in where panel lines are. There's a difference in the engine intakes though, the Matchbox one has six spokes in front of the fan fronts whereas the Xtrakit ones just have the fan fronts and the starter fairings protrude further out too.  Exhaust fairings are different too. The main wheel bays are in the same position.

There's a big difference in the tail planes though, the Xtrakit ones being quite a bit smaller in area, the trailing edge profile up to the hinge line are the same, the span is the same and the wing tip profile is the same, but the leading edge at the root is about 7mm less than the Matchbox ones.
Edit: that works out to be a massive 19 7/8" difference in 1:1 scale.  Which poses a question, are the tails planes different between a early PR.9 to the late PR.9?

That's about it from what I can see.

Robert

[Howard of Effingham]

so then i reckon let the cross-kitting commence! 

the oracle [waka thorvic] will tell me if i can do that EE canberra proposal P12 was it for a
high altitude interceptor/ FAW with AAM's [red top or red dean under the wing tips and a 20mm gunpack springs to
mind!]

based iirc on a PR9 or B8/PR9 cross.

trevor

nb waka = what-if modeller also known as......

[kitnut617]

Mostly but it lies abandoned in the loft as the jet outlets were short shot and warped and Hannants would not replace them, advising me to contact the manufacturer. I also asked one of their staff personally at a Duxford show and got a very offhand response.I think this is a rubbish attitude towards customers who buy a product they commissioned, and exclusively sell.

Van

Checked out my copy and althought there's a bit of flash on some of the parts there's no short shots to be seen.

[kitnut617]

so then i reckon let the cross-kitting commence! 

the oracle [waka thorvic] will tell me if i can do that EE canberra proposal P12 was it for a
high altitude interceptor/ FAW with AAM's [red top or red dean under the wing tips and a 20mm gunpack springs to
mind!]

based iirc on a PR9 or B8/PR9 cross.

trevor

I've written to John Adams who answered my queries, he says the Matchbox kit is mostly all wrong, apart from the difference in the tailplanes, he says the fuselage is too short for a PR.9, he says it's a B (I).8 but then says the Frog B (I).8 has the fuselage of a PR.9.  The Matchbox engine nacelles are also all wrong.  Why do you want to cross kit these two Trevor ?

[van883]

Mostly but it lies abandoned in the loft as the jet outlets were short shot and warped and Hannants would not replace them, advising me to contact the manufacturer. I also asked one of their staff personally at a Duxford show and got a very offhand response.I think this is a rubbish attitude towards customers who buy a product they commissioned, and exclusively sell.

Van

Checked out my copy and althought there's a bit of flash on some of the parts there's no short shots to be seen.

I am glad that your kit is ok-I may try to improvise on mine.

Van

[kitnut617]

I was going to post this ealier but I was waiting for John Adams permission.  This is the email I sent to him and his reply:

----- Original Message -----
From: Robert Austin
To: John Adams
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 4:54 PM
Subject: Query about PR.9 Canberras


Hi John,

Actually a query about the kits available of the PR.9.  I just bought a copy of the Xtrakit PR.9 Canberra and I read that you had kindly provided Hannants with drawings to make the masters, I tend to take whatever you have to say about these things very seriously and don't usually question you about it as you have proved in the past to be correct.  But I was comparing the Xtrakit with the Matchbox one I also have and although 90% of the kits match there was one area which differed tremendously.  This was the tailplanes, I saw that for the most part they matched, trailing edge, elevator hinge line, span and wing tips were pretty much the same, but the difference of the chord length at the root was 7mm different, the Xtrakit ones being the shorter.  That translates into 19 7/8" on the real thing which poses the questions, was the Matchbox kit really that much out ? or, did an early PR.9 have a different tailplane than a late PR.9 ?  I can see from the two kits they must have had different engines, would this have contributed to the different tails ?

I'd be very interested in what your comments are.

All the best
Robert Austin
Trochu Canada.

Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 12:26 PM
Subject: Re: Query about PR.9 Canberras


Hi Robert

Putting it simply the Matchbox 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, 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, but 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 centreline 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 and 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 untabbed 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 one, as they were going to use Czech copies of the Aerodata 34 drawings which though beautifully drawn are inaccurate.

Thats it in a nutshell.

Regards

John


In another answer John said he didn't think Sword and MPM were connected so it would seem Hannants has another outlet to make their kits other than MPM.  John was giving me examples of how accepted 3-view drawings of aircraft are now being found to be incorrect, he will be showing soon that highly regarded 3-views of the DH Hornet are producing some surprises in regards to accuracy.

[Howard of Effingham]

so then i reckon let the cross-kitting commence! 

I've written to John Adams who answered my queries, he says the Matchbox kit is mostly all wrong, apart from the difference in the tailplanes, he says the fuselage is too short for a PR.9, he says it's a B (I).8 but then says the Frog B (I).8 has the fuselage of a PR.9.  The Matchbox engine nacelles are also all wrong.  Why do you want to cross kit these two Trevor ?

becuase i want to! 

[Mossie]

Hi all,
      not a jibe, nor a 'Hannants bash' just to quote the U.K. "Sale of goods act 1978"
"Goods must be suitable for the purpose for which they are sold"
If you have a problem it is the RETAILERS RESPONSIBILITY to put it right, NOT the manufacturers.

I've not bought an Xtrakit kit yet, but I'm pretty sure that the manufacturer listed on the box will be Xtrakit/Hannants, not MPM.  If so, they'll be doubly responsible, according to their own 'advice'.