This is a placeholder for my Canberra entry in the LHC Group Build. ;)
More later................
Here's the kits which will be bashed into the Tu-13, eventually.
(https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img924/5676/U9uT73.jpg)
Now the Airfix B(I)8 isn't all there, just the wings, and the fuselage that is in the box is from a M'box PR9, and there's also some resin bits, like a rudder and a PR9 bomb bay etc.
And there'll be two U-2s involved in this build......
And yes, the An12, is 1/144 scale. ;)
i was wondering till you got to 2 U-2s now I'm intrigued
lead on Mr Kit sir, Lead on!! :thumbsup:
Neither of the U-2s have any wings of course.................... ;D
Intriguing, are the U-2's going to be pods or booms, and will they be afixed to where the engines of the Canberra would normally be so that the engines from the An-12 with wings are fitted to the outer span of the aircraft?
Gondor the inquisitive
Yes....................... ;)
I believe that would extend the wings a bit in the process :rolleyes:
Gondor
I may try to write Kanberra in Russian.
But I was wondering: would that use the E Cyrillic very common letter (pronounced "ye", so you should write Kanbyerra or like many people do: OK for writing Kanberra even if that follows imperfectly Russian pronunciation) or the rare letter э for "ea" (like in weather")?
Канберра Канбэрра
Quote from: PR19_Kit on July 29, 2022, 11:59:19 AM
And there'll be two U-2s involved in this build......
Quote from: PR19_Kit on July 29, 2022, 01:07:14 PM
Neither of the U-2s have any wings of course.................... ;D
Uh? Do that mean: 2 long U-2 fuselage with 2 tails? This sounds like a twin-boom project so I clap my hands! :thumbsup:
A twin boom Canberra.
The Myasishchev M-17 Stratosphera or M-55 Geophysica springs to mind,(a twin-boom U-2) although you have overcome the problem of the twin engines with your plan.
Quote from: Tophe on July 29, 2022, 10:44:33 PM
Uh? Do that mean: 2 long U-2 fuselage with 2 tails? This sounds like a twin-boom project so I clap my hands! :thumbsup:
No, it's still got one main fuselage (boom) but it will use both U-2 fuselages as well. ;D
Quote from: Tophe on July 29, 2022, 06:24:20 PM
I may try to write Kanberra in Russian.
But I was wondering: would that use the E Cyrillic very common letter (pronounced "ye", so you should write Kanbyerra or like many people do: OK for writing Kanberra even if that follows imperfectly Russian pronunciation) or the rare letter э for "ea" (like in weather")?
Канберра Канбэрра
Well done Tophe, I was looking at ways of doing that, and I wanted to use the back-to-front 'R' in 'Kanberra' but the only method I could find to write that (Alt+1071) didn't work. :(
Quote from: PR19_Kit on July 30, 2022, 03:06:39 AM
Well done Tophe, I was looking at ways of doing that, and I wanted to use the back-to-front 'R' in 'Kanberra' but the only method I could find to write that (Alt+1071) didn't work. :(
Thanks for what you say that I did not know, yes I am not joking here.
Well, when I type Alt-1071 here I get / (no use of it)
But when I type the same in MS Word I get Я that I can copy there and paste here.
But this sounds as "ya" which is not appropriate for Kamberra, not Kanberrya, or you are right somehow: what-if Kanbyerrya? which is exotic/funny... ;)
Quote from: PR19_Kit on July 29, 2022, 01:07:14 PM
Neither of the U-2s have any wings of course.................... ;D
Shame. I was imagining an X wing...
Quote from: zenrat on July 30, 2022, 03:47:08 AM
Quote from: PR19_Kit on July 29, 2022, 01:07:14 PM
Neither of the U-2s have any wings of course.................... ;D
Shame. I was imagining an X wing...
You're obviously on an X-Wing kick at the moment Fred. ;D
Serious building has commenced.
I wanted to use the lovely resin bomb-bay add-on, by Pavla I think, in the Kanberra, but it's designed for the Airfix PR9, not the M'box one, so the M'box wingroots protrude into the space where the bomb-bay goes. So a lengthy Dremel session was called for and now the roots are all gone.
(https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img922/7328/RW9syr.jpg)
A touch of super glue around the edges and the bomb-bay moulding slid nicely into place. :thumbsup:
(https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img923/450/zaoymu.jpg)
The resin moulding really is superb, and the red arrow points to the pipework where I installed a sampling valve on 13 Sqdn's PR9, XH131, way back in 1974. I'd like to think it's still there, but when I checked a few years ago, at the Long Kesh Museum nr Belfast, my arms weren't long enough to reach round the long range thank that's in the bay now. :(
Bold build Kit! I think i have an idea where you are headed- nice
It turns out the bomb bay upgrade kit is from CMK, not Pavla.
But it's still pretty good, apart from the fact that bay doors are about 3-4 mm too short for their own bomb-bay........... duh?
Some work done on the first U-2 fuselage, which now looks NOTHING like a U-2 fuselage.... ;)
Oh dear, the rear edge of the bomb bay came unglued from the fuselage, and now that both fuselage halves are glued together I couldn't get back in to re-glue it. :(
So the only solution was to saw the tail end of the fuselage off, lever the bomb-bay back into position, re-glue it, and then glue the tail back on.
Ho hum............... :-\
Hard work, yes, poor Kit... :unsure: :-\
But almost normal for me. ;D
Woah. Very intrigued by this one !
It's not going as well as I'd hoped Cap'n, I may have to re-think a major part of it, but that's Whiffwork.
Hmm, my original plan for this was to saw off the nose and tail of the two U-2 fuselages and glue them close in to the sides of the Canberra fuselage, a la CF-100, and link that configuration to the later Tu-16 which had a similar arrangement. But there's very little of a U-2 fuselage that's actually circular and by the time I'd sawn and filed off all the lumps and bumps there wasn't a whole lot left. :(
I've only done the 'work' on the Academy U-2 so I still have the Airfix one unsullied, and that could be used for other purposes, and in the meanwhile I'm trying to think how I can Whiff the normal Avons on the Canberra B(I)8 wing to make them look more 'Russian'.
Meanwhile I've added a whole new nose ;D and started to use some of the resin goodies I bought for it. The landing gear bays, by Reskit, look very good but they take some SERIOUS sawing to get the good bits off the moulding blocks, and their resin is a lot less workable than Colin Freightdog's stuff. :(
Thanks for the explanation of what the project was (with the U-2s) even if this project is cancelled. Should it be included in the British book "project : cancelled !". I think no because involving zero million £... ;)
Well no, because it's RUSSIAN!! ;D
It's not 100% cancelled, just 'modified' a bit.................
;D :thumbsup:
Having fitted the Reskit resin gear bay moulding to the Airfix B(I)8 wings, and assembled the rest of the wing structure, I found out that Airfix wings are marginally thicker than the slots in the Matchbox PR9 fuselage. :banghead:
As it's hardly the easiest of tasks to make the slots deeper, I guess I'll have to file the wing roots down a tad and hope it's not noticeable afterwards.
I've still not had any ideas about the engines but I'm going home for a few days next week and I'll have a look through my stock of AZ, Mikro Mir, Zvezda kits etc.
Russian engines have the impression of being BIG, not just the intakes but the exhausts as well. Maybe if you scale-o-rama 1/48 engines that would work
Gondor
Quote from: Gondor on August 16, 2022, 02:02:37 PM
Russian engines have the impression of being BIG, not just the intakes but the exhausts as well.
I have read somewhere about centrifugal jets being larger in appearance then axial jets, is it the explanation?
Quote from: Tophe on August 16, 2022, 02:11:38 PM
Quote from: Gondor on August 16, 2022, 02:02:37 PM
Russian engines have the impression of being BIG, not just the intakes but the exhausts as well.
I have read somewhere about centrifugal jets being larger in appearance then axial jets, is it the explanation?
Yes, centrifugals are fatter by definition. I don't have any 1/48 anything though, I only build 1/72 or 1/144 airliners.
This is an interesting project!
Tophe,
Here's a visual example of the difference between centrifugal and axial engines:
(https://www.century-of-flight.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/centrifugal-vs-axial-turbojet.png)
thanks! :thumbsup:
Quote from: PR19_Kit on August 16, 2022, 02:58:53 PM
I don't have any 1/48 anything though, I only build 1/72 or 1/144 airliners.
Surely some of the larger 1/44 Fan engines have a larger intake than a lot of 1/72 engines so maybe use a couple or more of them and larger tubes for the exhausts, just don't narrow the body of the engine after the new intake.
Gondor
Quote from: Gondor on August 17, 2022, 01:05:37 AM
Surely some of the larger 1/44 Fan engines have a larger intake than a lot of 1/72 engines so maybe use a couple or more of them and larger tubes for the exhausts, just don't narrow the body of the engine after the new intake.
They certainly do, it's a technique I've used on almost all my Canberra Whiffs in recent years, and it's always amazed me that BAe didn't do that for real, like Boeing did with the KC-135.
The problem is that a 1/1/44 engine is much shorter than the Canberra's nacelles, and there'd need to be a TON of PSR added to the Canberra bits. I'm working on alternatives though.
Quote from: PR19_Kit on August 17, 2022, 01:51:01 AM
The problem is that a 1/1/44 engine is much shorter than the Canberra's nacelles, and there'd need to be a TON of PSR added to the Canberra bits. I'm working on alternatives though.
Plastic tubing or drop tank of roughly the same eternal diameter will enable you to position the engine front where you want it, forward, back, up or down and reduce the amount of PSR required. If the engine was raised or lowered then a section of tubing would also reduce the amount of PSR with that adjustment as well. Of course none of the above will eliminate the PSR but it should reduce it which is always a good thing.
Gondor
Here's the latest addition to the build list for this device, an A Model Yak 28NM kit.
Tu-13 Kamberra-d.jpg
Ignore all the writing on the box lid, that comes from when I was going to cross-kit it into a Mandrake. But it looks as if the engine's size will allow me to go back to my original plan for this build. Much joy! ;D
Having said that, finding the engines in the mass of flash and monster sprue gates that are part and parcel of many A Model kits isn't easy, but I've got so far with it.
Tu-13 Kamberra-e.jpg
The shock cone that's meant to fit in the intake has no less than FOUR parts, none of which actually fit each other, and need some considerable work to ensure that they do, but it sort of looks the part. I just hope I can get it to fit in where it's meant to go....
Actually, Kit, the correct translation is "Yak-28PM". ;)
I'll take your word for it Comrade. ;D
Sadly it won't improve the 'quality' of the kit, the word 'quality' being used here in its WIDEST possible sense! :-\
I've got one engine assembled now, plus I've hacked one wing of the Kanberra too, and things are looking promising. ;D
I used a Tu-28 kit in my Martin B-57e Super Canberra model:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimageshack.com%2Fa%2Fimg922%2F3500%2F6r8BpV.jpg&hash=42aaf193f0a1e5b63c1b3924934518bf17b29cca)
I had to significantly lengthen the wing though...
Quote from: rickshaw on August 28, 2022, 10:09:49 PMI used a Tu-28 kit in my Martin B-57e Super Canberra model:
I had to significantly lengthen the wing though...
I REALLY like that Brian. :thumbsup:
And of COURSE you had to lengthen the wing.................. ;D
Quote from: PR19_Kit on August 29, 2022, 04:11:27 AMQuote from: rickshaw on August 28, 2022, 10:09:49 PMI used a Tu-28 kit in my Martin B-57e Super Canberra model:
I had to significantly lengthen the wing though...
I REALLY like that Brian. :thumbsup:
And of COURSE you had to lengthen the wing.................. ;D
Just happened naturally, your honour, honest! :thumbsup:
And here's the starboard half of what it will look like eventually. ;) ;D
Tu-13 Kamberra-f.jpg
The hole in the top of the green bit of the fuselage will be filled after I've poured enough Liquid Gravity in there to keep the hose wheel on the deck.
:thumbsup:
I see where you are going with that and I like it :thumbsup:
Gondor
It's dreadful! Such short wings! :o
Quote from: loupgarou on August 31, 2022, 09:16:33 AMIt's dreadful! Such short wings! :o
They're exactly the same length as a Canberra B2 wings, which isn't surprising as Tupolev was using the same drawings, or some of them anyway..........
The back story will tell all. ;)
Quote from: PR19_Kit on August 31, 2022, 05:25:24 AMAnd here's the starboard half of what it will look like eventually. ;) ;D
Tu-13 Kamberra-f.jpg
The hole in the top of the green bit of the fuselage will be filled after I've poured enough Liquid Gravity in there to keep the hose wheel on the deck.
Again, another reminder, this time of my "rational Canberra B.1 prototype (https://www.whatifmodellers.com/index.php?topic=43992.msg774312#msg774312)" model:
(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimageshack.com%2Fa%2Fimg923%2F4716%2FMyfcNn.jpg&hash=06e6d2c2b2f536a9678a75afa569390fb71b7c6d)
Starts to look a little like a Canuck.
I like that one too Brian, VERY much. :thumbsup:
Stupidly I can't remember seeing it before, even though I praised it to the heights at the time. ;D
While the Tu-13 does bear a resemblance to the CF-100's layout, it predates the Canuck by some years. The answer's in the backstory, which is still being written, but is complete in my head. ;D
Major stupidity with the Tu-13 build, I managed to glue the wing on the WRONG way round! :banghead:
My excuse is that the engine nacelle looks back-to-front anyway, with a small inlet and a HUGE exhaust.
UN-gluing the wing is becoming an even more serious problem though. Being aware that I was only butt-jointing the engine and wing I used some serious glue on the joint, and sawing through the joint is pretty hard work. :(
Wow ! Of all the things that can happen eh ! :banghead:
Sometimes it's best to draw arrows on things to indicate the top or front, just saying..... :-\
Gondor the Concerned
Sometimes it's even better to follow the plan that you've laboriously drawn up too................. :banghead:
Just remember Kit's Second Law of Modelling, I think I have the right law, that anything can be written into the backstory :-\
Gondor
Absolutely, works every time. ;D
If it's supposed to be Russian then just go with it. They would have made it fly somehow.
Although - by law - all Russian/Soviet airplanes must have wing fences.
Quote from: frank2056 on September 01, 2022, 08:51:28 PMAlthough - by law - all Russian/Soviet airplanes must have wing fences.
They keep the airflow from defecting.......
This joke was stolen from someone on this website whose name I don't recall. But it's still a good one!
Quote from: PR19_Kit on September 01, 2022, 03:07:19 AMMajor stupidity with the Tu-13 build, I managed to glue the wing on the WRONG way round! :banghead:
My excuse is that the engine nacelle looks back-to-front anyway, with a small inlet and a HUGE exhaust.
UN-gluing the wing is becoming an even more serious problem though. Being aware that I was only butt-jointing the engine and wing I used some serious glue on the joint, and sawing through the joint is pretty hard work. :(
But it was back to front, or top to under? In the second case, it's not too noticeable...Of course, the wing efficiency would be... ahem... impaired...
The leading edge was at the rear, but it was the right way up. :(
Now it's correct but there's too much dihedral. :banghead:
I may live with it, but may not. I like the idea of wing fences though, oh yes. :thumbsup:
I've just found this thread while looking for something else, and I can't for the life of me remember doing this, or what happened to it, or where it is in this chaotic house! :banghead: :banghead:
Oh dear! :-\
It was only a year ago, Kit! :rolleyes:
You didn't accidentally leave it at your "other" home? :unsure:
No idea, but it raises the number of stalled projects to 63 now!
Maybe if you find it and look it over you'll get inspired again! It was going in an interesting direction.
Yeah, just what I thought when the thread popped up.