Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

English Electric Canberra PR.9

1:72 Revell

box.jpg

To put into perspective what the Canberra was, let's first look at the fact it was only retired 6 years ago in 2006 from RAF service. Yet it started out in life as a replacement for the De havilland Mosquito as an unarmed bomber and first flew in 1949. Not many aircraft have provided half a century of military service. In RAF service, it served 35 squadrons and around the world served 15 countries. It was a success right from the drawing board and went into service initially in B.2 form replacing the Mosquito, Lincoln and Washington and shortly after, the PR.3 in the reconnaissance role. The B.6 with more powerful engines and greater fuel capacity replaced the B.2 at UK bases freeing the B.2's to form overseas squadrons. From 1955, the Canberra was replaced in the high level bombing role by the Valiant, so its future lay in low level attack. This led to the B(I)8 with the fighter style cockpit as oppose the dome shaped canopy with numerous revisions to suit the low down role including nuclear strike capability and external hardpoints. By 1972, all bomber versions of the Canberra were retired from RAF service, but it continued to serve in the reconnaissance role in PR.7 & PR.9 form and it was the PR.9 that stayed in service until 2006. In its time, it broke the world altitude record three times, achieving over 70,000ft and won the 'Last Great Air Race' flying from London to Christchurch in 23hrs 51 min, a record that still stands today. Whilst there are many examples of British aircraft failing in their bid for international success, the Canberra really was one of our greatest aviation achievements in that respect, not only being exported to many countries, but being licence built in the USA and Australia.

The kit

Don't get too excited here, this is the old Matchbox kit revisited, so the kit you are about to look at has a history comparable to the real thing ! The three colour scheme has been replaced by Revell's normal light grey coloured sprues of which there's three and a clear one. First impressions are more of nostalgia than anything else, quite a change from the Eduard 1/72 Bf110 I've just reviewed. That said, it looks like a Canberra and is an ideal kit for beginners and young modellers due to its simplicity. The instructions are black and white A4 pages with good clear diagrams and decaling / painting instructions at the rear. Assembly starts with the cockpit area. The moulding of the pilots is actually quite detailed, but the seats are very basic as is the rest of the cockpit. As not much will be seen inside, this isn't a major concern. In not too much time at all, you will be closing the fuselage up and attaching the wings. I suspect there will be some filler use around these major sections. The bomb bay can be built either open or closed, however being a reconnaissance bird, it doesn't house weapons so there isn't any.

fuse.jpg

nose.jpg

wing-upper.jpg

wing-upper-close.jpg

tail.jpg

pilots.jpg

wing-lower.jpg

wing-lower-close.jpg

There is some flash around the sprues, which you would expect as these moulds have been around since 1978. If you do want to get one of these, you may want to add some extra detail, perhaps give it a rescribe to add some interest to those vast open surfaces of plastic. The engine intakes and exhausts fit onto each end of the nacelles moulded into the wing sections. You can have the wheels up or down, so this could make a nice 'in flight' display piece. If you choose to have the wheels down, there is no wheel well detail, so you may want to do something about that. The undercarriage is fairly basic in detail, I would describe it as adequate. The canopy is one piece, so unless you get a vac replacement, you won't be able to have it open. That said, with such a basic interior, you won't want to unless you give it a make over. Whilst the canopy looks a little thick, I should imagine that after a dip in Kleer it won't look too bad if you decide to use it. Also on the sprue are the wing navigation lights and forward windows.

clear-1.jpg

clear2.jpg

The decals

The decal sheet does look rather nice. There is some very fine stencils, in fact there's an incredible amount of stencils ! The instructions are well written and show clearly where each stencil goes as each is numbered for ease. The register on the decals is spot on and the printing is very crisp. Two options are provided:

XH136 No.39 Sqn, No.1 Photo Reconnaissance Unit RAF based at Karup AB, Denmark during 'Best Focus' in 1982 wearing the camouflage green/grey over light grey scheme

XH135 No.13 Sqn, No.1 Photo Reconnaissance Unit RAF based at RAF Wyton 1991 wearing the hemp over light grey scheme

decal.jpg

Conclusion

This is an old kit that's been resurrected. Airfix released a new PR.9 quite recently with much more detail, so the competition is strong, however Revell must have their reasons to release this. Detail is very basic, being of typical Matchbox output of the 1970's. That said, it has a lovely decal sheet and would be a great kit to help to build your way out of modellers block and is well priced. It's also a great kit to get kids into modelling, in fact my 7 son is quite excited about being asked if he wants to build it.

Revell model kits are available from all good toy and model retailers. For further information visit

logo-revell-2009.gif

  • Like 1
Posted

Thanks for the review Woody37,

Even though not a kit of todays standards, it brings back a lot of memories (flight testing from the top of the roof)!!!!!

I would think of purchasing it just for the decals.

Cheers

Sernak

Posted (edited)

Thanks for the memories. I built one of these a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away......

Seriously though, in some respects thhis kit is better than the Airfix kit: the surface detail, where it exists, is finer and the fin root leading edge is more accrate in shape.

However I recall using quite a bit of filler to get the intake sections to meet thir mountings properly and some of the modelling pundits when the kit was firstt releasd criticised the cockpit canopy for being too shalllow due to the step between frame and glazing. That said it was fun to build and captures the lines of the aeroplane well. I rather fancy renewing my acquainatnce with this kit.

Edited by stever219
Posted

Having built several Matchbox kits over the last few years, I know where you're coming from. It was these kits that inspired a generation and they still make you want to have another go. I'd be tempted to add a few details though to give it a little upgrade as breathing new life in to these old kits is quite addictive :)

Posted

A piece of advice:

Don't forget it's VERY tailheavy so a decent chunk of lead is required in the nose section!

But to think it's enough just to fill the nosecone you're wrong - it's not!

I myself learned it the hard way, when building this one in the mid 80's, that it was necessary to add extra weight beside the observers seat inside the fuselage! I found out after I had glued the fuselage halves together, so I had to drill a hole in the nose to be able to add that extra weight!

Cheers

Nicolai

  • 4 weeks later...
Posted

Nice review Neil. I'm at my parents for the week and have my old Matchbox kit with me, shall be taking it home to build in the future. Just been looking on Hannants, some nice details for the Airfix kit which I'm sure could be worked onto this kit.

:)

Posted

Thanks for the review, my one build in the 80's ended up as a tester for humbrol spray cans, and its remains are still in my mum's loft still covered in silver paint. I think you could probably graft my EE P.12 all-weather fighter conversion set on it with minimal difficulty and make a nice whif, making use of much of that very smart decal sheet. The only comment I have is that these airframes aquired lots of lumps and bumps over the years, so the hemp decal option is not really that applicable to whats in the box unless you have ther very old C-Scale update set kicking about.

I saw it in the local Modelzone a few weeks back and was temped for pure nostalgia. Wasn't there an issue with the size of the tailplanes to?

Colin

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...