Advice needed! : EE Canberra B2 1:72 preferably Airfix

[Raptormodeller]

For a suitably whiffy build of course. I'm looking for a cheap EE Canberra b2, if anyone has any links to any good ones up for sale at a reasonable price (20-35£) then I'd be happy to know  about it!

Thanks in advance!  :thumbs:

chomp chomp
-raptorßß

[PR19_Kit]

You'll be lucky, they're well extinct and many traders seem to think they're moulded in platinum..... 

[rickshaw]

Hiplanes do a Canberra B.2 - http://www.hpmhobbies.com/products/High-Planes-EE-Canberra-B2-RAF-%28Kit-1%3A72%29.html

They are more primitive than even the old airfix B.2 but clean up well and are accurate in outline.   They cost $Au55.70 plus postage from Singapore.  That is approximately (at today's prices) 26.77 Pounds.

[PR19_Kit]

That's not too bad, and the only source of a  'fishbowl canopy' Canberra in 1/72 now I think, yes?

[kitnut617]

Frog did a PR.7 which has a fishbowl, and Aeroclub did a conversion fuselage for a B.2

[PR19_Kit]

I meant now................

[murfv]

If it is of any help, Heritage Aviation do a T4(goldfish bowl) conversion set for the newer Airfix Canberra B8(i) that may be a starting point.
http://www.kitsforcash.com/canberra-t4-231-ocu-fresh-from-a-revamp-180-p.asp

[PR19_Kit]

If it is of any help, Heritage Aviation do a T4(goldfish bowl) conversion set for the newer Airfix Canberra B8(i) that may be a starting point.
http://www.kitsforcash.com/canberra-t4-231-ocu-fresh-from-a-revamp-180-p.asp

That's good, I didn't know about that conversion, and if it's like any of their other stuff it'll fit really well.

You could make the PR9 prototype with that and an M'box PR9, plus a bit of 'firkling' on the wings.

Well spotted Murfv, I may get one of those. 

[rickshaw]

That's not too bad, and the only source of a  'fishbowl canopy' Canberra in 1/72 now I think, yes?

Only injected one, I think.  As noted, Heritage do a resin conversion and the Aeroclub vacuform conversion is still available.  The Hiplanes ones look a bit rough when you look at them in the box but once assembled, they actually go together rather well and come out quite nice.  I prefer to use them over the older Frog/Revell/Matchbox models (the wing and engines always looked a little funny on them IMO).

[PR19_Kit]

The M'box/Revell PR9s were a 'little funny' as they had the beefed up Avons, compared to the earlier Marks. I did once consider kitbashing those engines into a B(I)8 or a B6 but without the increased chord wings they look very odd
indeed.

It's funny how some shapes burn themselves into your mind without you noticing and even the slightest variation looks strange. You'd think that would have little effect on died-on-the-wool Whiffers such as ourselves, but it certainly does on me. 

[rickshaw]

I found the shape of the engine nacelles were a little different to the traditional depiction.  Much chunkier and less "smooth".

[kitnut617]

Some comments from John Adams (Mr Aeroclub) about the Matchbox Canberra

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

John had also sent me some other notes on all the Canberra kits in 1/72 (apparently John worked on Canberras when he was in the RAF), I had thought I posted them here but I can't find where I might have posted it. I also can't find the email he sent me about it either ---   

[Thorvic]

That's not too bad, and the only source of a  'fishbowl canopy' Canberra in 1/72 now I think, yes?

Only injected one, I think.  As noted, Heritage do a resin conversion and the Aeroclub vacuform conversion is still available.  The Hiplanes ones look a bit rough when you look at them in the box but once assembled, they actually go together rather well and come out quite nice.  I prefer to use them over the older Frog/Revell/Matchbox models (the wing and engines always looked a little funny on them IMO).

John Adams actually does/did an injection moulded clear plastic bomber nose conversion with a separate nose cone and fish bowl canopies, however its probably best to contact him via Britmodeller PM to see if its available or not at the moment as he's effectively retired now.

[PR19_Kit]

John Adams actually does/did an injection moulded clear plastic bomber nose conversion with a separate nose cone and fish bowl canopies, however its probably best to contact him via Britmodeller PM to see if its available or not at the moment as he's effectively retired now.

Indeed he did, and somewhere in this madhouse I've got one. Goodness knows where though.