Canberra Bomber

[Stationair8]

What was the Canberra like to fly?

Had the pleasure to sit in the cockpit of one recently, and found it a pretty cosy fit for a tall person.

[Jig Peter]

A very pleasant way to earn one's crust - perhaps you should have lowered the seat you sat in. All controls and switches easily accessible without loosening the seat harness ...
With Mae West, jungle tree let down cord pack (for abseiling down from those green tree-tops) and then parachute and seat harnesses on, the air "conditioning" was so inefficient that low level in the Far East was guaranteed to leave your whole kit from "shreddies" outwards sweat-soaked after a low-level trip that you needed a full change before you next flew. Kept the Safety kit section guys busy !
But overall, a very, very nice and well-balanced aircraft to fly, whether at high or low level and an excellent weapons platform. High single-engine safety speed meant you had to "watch it" on one - and no way try an overshoot after lowering flap on approach with one "out".

[longer ron]

Yes the 'fishbowl' canopy was a silly idea,we really should have had our own version of the B57 type canopy,of course the PR9/BI 8 were ok for the pilots !
Based on my ONE flight in a T4 with a 'Trapper' on 231 OCU in 1974ish - very smooth and quiet ,very pleasant to fly and others much more qualified to post will confirm that assymetric flying was its achilles heel.
The Canberras without Cold Air Units were very uncomfortable for the aircrew at low level,summer of '76 was not nice for the B2 drivers.

rgds lr

[Noyade]

you needed a full change before you next flewReminded me of a photo of 'Pat' Tibbs after a test flight in the B-57A. The recommendation was to improve the air-conditioning system for prolonged low-level flight...

http://img855.imageshack.us/img855/5314/img071j.jpg (http://img855.imageshack.us/i/img071j.jpg/)

[603DX]

Like longer ron, I had just one flight in a T4, a 30 minute "air experience" trip at Waddington in 1957. As an 18 years old CCF cadet in my last year before going to university, my "hands-on" flying experience before this was very limited indeed, just a few minutes on each of two Chipmunk flights, and an RAF gliding course at Halton, where I went solo to qualify for the A & B certificates.

Consequently, like Manuel the waiter in Fawlty Towers, "I knew nothing"! So it was astonishing to me that the Canberra pilot let me have the controls for nearly 10 minutes. It is perhaps a tribute to the handling characteristics of the T4, which was after all designed as a trainer, that I had no difficulty in keeping it straight and level, and also carrying out a few gentle banked turns. The pilot then took over again and demonstrated a practice GCA landing approach, in contact with the control caravan alongside the runway. All very smooth, quiet and comfortable, with a superb view from that "bubble" canopy. Possibly the only downside was that no ejection seats were fitted, so the pupil's seat I was sitting in had to be slid back on runners to allow access to the escape hatch on the starboard side. Baling out in an emergency could have been a bit of a problem, I felt, and the pilot and navigator would have had to get me out of their way pretty smartish!

[l.garey]

603DX:
Quote: All very smooth, quiet and comfortable, with a superb view from that "bubble" canopy. Possibly the only downside was that no ejection seats were fitted, so the pupil's seat I was sitting in had to be slid back on runners to allow access to the escape hatch on the starboard side.

The Canberra T4 did in fact have ejection seats. Indeed on 2 September 2004, WJ866 was involved in an accident at Marham when practising asymmetric landings and all 3 seats fired, killing 2 of the crew.
I never flew in the T4, but as a passenger in the B2 and B6. I remember sitting in the jump seat, rigged to the right of the pilot, and having an excellent view, although obviously blocking the escape hatch had there been an emergency. I recall how dark the sky was at FL 400 plus. At the time of my B2 flights (1956-1957), the Canberra had been experiencing run-away of the electric elevator trim, which had caused some crashes due to sudden pitch-up. It didn't happen to me though!

Laurence

[603DX]

l.garey: Most interesting, to learn that in later years the Canberra T4 was in fact fitted with ejection seats, as evidenced by the sad accident you refer to, in 2004.

But my flight took place some 47 years previously in 1957, and I am absolutely certain that the aircraft was NOT equipped with such seats. It is hardly the sort of thing that would escape one's notice, I distinctly recall that my joy at getting a trip in such a splendid aircraft was tempered by a certain concern about escape should things go wrong. It seems that I must have been in an earlier version of the dual control trainer.

[Compass Call]

Laurence

I believe that the first Canberra T.4s were not fitted with ejection seats. These came later.

CC

[l.garey]

I am just checking in "English Electric Canberra" by Beamont and Reed (1984). They make no reference to early T4s being without ejector seats. Quote: "Entry ... was also complicated by the complex sliding ejector seat of the instructor". As the prototype T4 (WM467) first flew in 1952, I take it that it already had ejector seats. So it is interesting that 603DX so clearly remembers his not being so equipped in 1957. I wonder, do you recall the serial of the T4 you flew in?

Laurence

[603DX]

Unfortunately, no. On leaving home for university my mother threw out much of my accumulated "bumph", including my log book recording all flights and aircraft serial numbers! (I was not pleased.)

[l.garey]

Pity! We might have been able to follow it up. It is certainly worth asking on here if any Canberra pilots remember a T4 without bang seats. I shall do this to my only remaining Canberra jockey friend!

Laurence

[l.garey]

There was some discussion here:
231 OCU Bassinbourn - 1955 era - Canberras [Archive] - PPRuNe Forums (http://www.pprune.org/archive/index.php/t-272367.html)

and WHAT KIND OF SEAT WAS THAT (http://www.ejectorseats.co.uk/seat-type.html) states that the Martin Baker Mk 2 and 3 were fitted "Post 1963".

Laurence

[603DX]

Your two links seem to confirm that some T4's (prior to 1963) did not have ejection seats, and this would tend to support my memory of the experience. The following points are also relevant, I think:

There were no ejection handles at the seat tops above our heads.
A conventional Irvin parachute was put on before entering the aircraft, exactly the same as those I wore for the Chipmunk flights. (I believe that MB seats have special built-in parachute packs as part of the escape system).
No instruction at all was given before the flight regarding operation of ejection seats.
I find it very difficult to consider that despite my strong recollections, I might actually have been sitting in a primed bang seat without knowing it! The potential danger of such a situation is obvious; as one scrambled into the right hand seat it would have been possible to grab a handhold and inadvertently fire the damned thing! And there was no red safety disc and removable pin to guard against such a catastrophe. No, I am as certain as I could be, that there were no such seats fitted in that particular aircraft.

[longer ron]

Hi Laurence
Link to 527sqn article...

In the case of the training Canberra, the T4, although the navigators had ejection seats the cramped cockpit for both pilots did not afford enough room for ejection seats and the only way out for the pilots was to slide the right hand seat backward, open the side door in the fuselage and bale out conventionally. In a situation that required the pilots to abandon the aircraft it was a very hit and miss affair and when the Canberra later had a problem with runaway tailplane actuators I think it proved impossible to get out in the time available.

RAFWatton.info Flying on 527 Squadron in the Early 1950's (http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=7&sqi=2&ved=0CE0QFjAG&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rafwatton.info%2FHistory%2FMemories%2FM emoriesRalphSwift1954on%2FFlyingon527SquadronintheEarly1950s %2Ftabid%2F142%2FDefault.aspx&ei=qD6QTpCqNJSw8QP8nLUF&usg=AFQjCNH9djIttpfxFiLT7WUCdCLfjdxafg)

Although I have never seen it myself I believe that some of the very early T birds had a non ejecting sliding seat for the pilots.

rgds baz

[longer ron]

603DX
You could not mistake the Swing type ejection seat ,we used a 'Pig Sticker' to hold the control column forward,this allowed the bang seat to swing forward to the fwd latch,the nav would get in - then the seat was swung back to the rear latch and the pilot(s) could enter.Once both pilots were seated the seat was swung back to the centre latch and the 'Pig Sticker' would be removed.
I have seen a drawing somewhere of the seat that you describe...but of course all T4s would eventually have been modified to have bang seats.

rgds baz

[longer ron]

This will be the seating arrangement described by 603 !
Orig posted by John Aeroclub on key

http://i695.photobucket.com/albums/vv316/volvosmoker/earlyT4.jpg

[l.garey]

As promised, I asked my ex-Canberra friend: he cannot remember ever seeing a T4 without bang seats, but he only flew them from 1967 to 1979, so it looks as if the early ones (including those in 1957) were without them.

Laurence

[603DX]

longer ron: Yes, I think that shows the arrangement as I remember it. I was in the right hand/starboard side seat, which slid fore and aft on runners until locked in position. Looks a bit "fixed" in this drawing at the top, but it definitely did move!
Certainly, the two seats as depicted here alongside each other in a dual-control configuration are not of the ejection type. If that is the bottom of the navigator's seat behind the port side pilot's seat, then as drawn it might have been a bang seat, and if so the section of fuselage above it would presumably have had to be exploded off before firing.

[Jig Peter]

:8

Having converted onto the Canberra at Bassingbourn in 1957 and then flown them for 2 Squadron tours (with a ground tour in between) I can't remember a T4 without bang-seats, but the "little grey cells " don't seem to have as good a search function as they once did.

- For the navigators to eject, one of them (or both!) first operated a switch to set off the explosive bolts which fastened down the hatch above their MB seats, and then pulled the handle. Reflection tells me that on the T4, we usually flew with only one navigator in the left-hand seat, but whether there was another MB seat for an observer/passenger memory also fails me: my mental picture is that there was one, but see above.

- I also seem to remember that the control column yokes on the T4 were
shorter on the T4 than on the single-pilot Marks, because of the lack of shoulder room but on that point too I wouldn't be sure of winning a point in a pub quiz. The impression may have come from the slightly hunched position you adopted when in the RH seat, and a bit twisted to the left to see the single instrument panel.
Not a very positive response, I'm afraid, but it's been 2-score years and 3 since ...

[Lukeafb1]

(From 1961 onwards)

Longer Ron is quite right about having to swing the right seat forward to allow the Navigator to get in, then swung back for the front crew entry. There were two bang seats in the back.

The front seats were very ‘cozy’ being somewhat closer together than was comfortable. We were always told that if we needed to eject from the front, to go through the canopy rather than jettison it first. Never appealed to me because it was pretty strongly built! I once saw a pilot’s canopy fired by mistake by an armourer in a hangar, and all that happened was a damn great crack appeared and the port side lifted slightly, so probably going through it was the best advice.

All seats had ejection handles above the head.

The back seater’s had to jettison the hatch before going themselves, even though the hatch was ‘frangible’. But again, it was pretty strongly built.

[Jig Peter]

Considering that the first (weren't there others?) Canberra Spec dates from 1945, the aircraft is quite amazing - and so elegantly simple ... The sleek fuselage, with the wings joining it on the centre-line and therefore needing no fairings to smooth out unwanted burbles in the airflow, which was also the case with the engines.
The engine position did need a main spar having to bridge the jet pipes, but this was a manufacturing inconvenience counterbalanced by the drag reduction. The low aspect-ratio wing gave it that high-altitude ability which helped make it outstanding and long-living, despite its low Mach capabilities, which were in any case far above those of contemporary aircraft, including fighters.
The trim runaway problem did cause much perturbation, until a T4 from Bassingbourn had a runaway "UP" and the instructor (?? Pete Stonham??)smartly wheeled it into a steep turn, then as speed dropped off selected full flap, thus restoring the aircraft to trim and a careful return to base, for the cause to be revealed and remedies found. Tks, Mr.Petter and his team !!!

[ZH875]

Canberra, Hunter, Buccaneer, DC3, B747, Concorde all share a common phenomenon:


If it looks right, it is right.

[goudie]

If it looks right, it is right.



It didn't but the old Blackburn Beverley still managed to get airborne.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7a/Blackburn_beverley_in_1964_arp.jpg/300px-Blackburn_beverley_in_1964_arp.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Blackburn_beverley_in_1964_arp.jpg)

[ZH875]

It didn't but the old Blackburn Beverley still managed to get airborne.



Same triack Helicopters use, it's called Repulsion :ok:

[Krystal n chips]

" If it looks right, it is right."

Equally applicable to the maintenance world. Speaking as somebody who used to remove the nose on a frequent basis, then the tanks to remove the corrosion in the tank bay, the aircraft was almost unique for a UK design in that some thought had actually been given to maintenance procedures.

The structure was also "pretty robust " as we were involved in the original battle damage repair techiniques on the "decoys" at Bruggen...the plan was to use a standard fire axe as carried on board to make a hole..or two....despite the best efforts of several enthusiastic engineers.....the structure won.

This may prove reassuring to those who flew the beast....;)

[603DX]

Canberra, Hunter, Buccaneer, DC3, B747, Concorde all share a common phenomenon:


If it looks right, it is right.

I agree about this for all except the Buccaneer - in my opinion Blackburn were fundamentally incapable of turning out designs that "looked right", the Buccaneer looking as if it was designed by a committee who couldn't agree. The Beverley was another case, as Goudie points out above.

Yet their products apparently worked well enough, so it seems there have been honourable exceptions to that time-honoured "rule". ;)

[Jig Peter]

With its development history going back to gliders carrying troops and vehicles (Hamilcar ?) later given two Bristol Mercuries to enable it to reach the DZ it was aimed at), the "wizard idea" the Army had for the task was a really powerful aeroplane. The ability to carry light(ish) vehicles up to small tank size and simultaneously drop paratroops from the Dakota-sized boom seemed "ideal" - and in that light the "Flying Cathedral" was Fit for Purpose. Whether the Purpose was Fit for Practice was/is an entirely other question ... But I'm sure it impressed the Chaps in Brown who had such influence in its conception. It should have spawned a variant on Lord Brabazon's Horse/Camel/Committee jibe, like "The Beverley is an aeroplane designed by Pongos" ...


PS. As a disappointed TSR2 hopeful, I also felt that the Buccaneer/Bulgemaster was an aeroplane designed by fish-heads - how could it look right?
I know it inspired respect and even love in many aircrew, but there was always the remark often made in other circumstances when choices are running out - "I don't think much of yours".
In any case, by the time it was in service, I was "Outta there" and a happy civvie.

[happybiker]

The Canberra was also a supreme platform as a trials aircraft. I spent 4 years at RRE Pershore in the late 1960s and the flexibility of the aircraft for the testing and development of future systems was second to none. Considering its time in service and its many roles it must rank in the top ten of British military aircraft of the post war period.

[Wander00]

In the early days of 360 (late 66 or early 67 ) and we had few aircraft, some of us did some flying for RRE at Pershore- max 2 1/2 hour trips, land by 1630 or go elsewhere, no flying if rudder locks needed, down below 10,000ft and hot soup at half time and electric socks - fantastic. The aeroplanes were immaculate as well. I remember one trial required the nav or AEO to lie on the floor by the exit door lining up a chinagraph mark on the canopy with another Canberra flying several thousand feet higher.

[Dr Jekyll]

On the subject of design, why were the engines so far apart?

[D120A]

Dr Jekyll

Shear relief on the inner main spars. The further out the engines, the slimmer the inboard spar which has only the fuselage to lift. Shear force (and hence bending moment) at the wing root is minimised, slimmer spar, slimmer wing.

[aviate1138]

Re the mighty Beverley....

In 1960 I sat in the boom with other participants after a Sylt based 38 Group exercise and on our way back to a fog free Colerne I seem to recall an airframe mech screwing bits back in place - the constant vibration apparently made items fall off [maybe his bull****] but we were made aware of a hole in the floor to be avoided [maybe another leg-pull, maybe not]?

As an ILS Ground Radio National Service Junior Tech it was all great fun to be away from my deck chair outside the Benson Glideslope hut!

[goudie]

but we were made aware of a hole in the floor to be avoided [maybe another leg-pull, maybe not]?


Certainly wasn't a leg-pull. There was a door in the floor of the boom. Several people died falling though it..... when the A/C was on the ground!

[Royalistflyer]

Didn't an Australian nav bang out of a perfectly good Canberra without bothering to send the hatch off first?

[Wander00]

Certainly an RN Obs banged out of a T4 at Watton when a practice EFATO looked like going wrong, without getting rid of the hatch first, and sadly died. RIP (ISTR his name was Norman Lake, but it is a long time ago - about 1966 or 67)

[lakerman]

I was a lowly electrician on Station Flight at RAF Upwood in 1958/9 and our T4 had bang seats for both pilot and trainee, it swung forward and latched to allow the navigator to enter, then swung back to allow the pilot and trainee to enter, finally swung to the middle and latched for normal operation.
We also had two B2's with a double actuated piece of piping on the end of each wing. These aircraft only flew at night and often came back with bits of twigs and leaves stuck on various parts of the aircraft, we then had to remove a filter from these "pipes" and hand them over to the Flt Sergeant i/c Station Flight, we called them "baccie bombers" because of the filters. We suspected they flew to certain parts of darkened Europe late in to the night and were measuring air quality/radiation levels. Some retired pilots could confirm this for me.

[redsetter]

A couple of Upwood B.2s were flown on Operation Baccy during 59-60. That was a sampling programme on behalf of Harwell to see how much radioactive debris was present in the atmosphere over the UK.

[Lukeafb1]

Wander00,

Was at Watton on 51 when the incident you mentioned happened. Didn't the seat narrowly miss the Stn Commander, who was walking his dog on the sports field?

[603DX]

The potential danger of such a situation is obvious; as one scrambled into the right hand seat it would have been possible to grab a handhold and inadvertently fire the damned thing! And there was no red safety disc and removable pin to guard against such a catastrophe. No, I am as certain as I could be, that there were no such seats fitted in that particular aircraft.

(The above from my post #13)

I have just recalled a further relevant point tending to confirm there were no bang seats in the T4 I flew in. In 1956, the year before my flight, our CCF annual camp was at RAF Andover. One of the "treats" for us was a day trip in trucks to what was then RAF Wroughton, Wiltshire (now part of the Imperial War Museum or the Science Museum, I forget which).

At that time, the hangars were absolutely chock-full of a fascinating array of aircraft as a sort of ad hoc museum. We sat in a Fieseler Storch, a Japanese rocket-powered fighter, a Wellington cockpit, and so on. One of the exhibits was the fuselage of a Canberra, fitted with bang seats. These
had red painted steel discs attached to pins to guard against accidental firing (though obviously the seats were not still loaded with cartridges!). Well, the inevitable happened, one of the idiots in our party decided to pinch one of these as a "souvenir". This probably happened often, so someone checked and noticed it was missing before we left. We were kept waiting in the back of the lorry by our highly embarrassed officer, who threatened we would be kept there until the culprit owned up.

To cut a long story short ("too late", did someone say?), the red-faced berk who had it eventually handed it back, and if looks could have killed on the way back, he wouldn't have survived the journey! (We were from a highly respected Grammar school, oh, the shame!!)

So the following year, the appearance of a Martin Baker bang seat would have been indelibly etched on my memory, and no mistake .... :ooh:

[603DX]

The memory is a wonderful thing, once stirred by a recollection, others come back unbidden ...

(May I crave a little indulgence by the Mods, this isn't really on topic!)

Another "treat" at our camp at RAF Andover was an unexpected offer from a friendly Squadron Leader for six of us to accompany him on his imminent business trip in a communications Anson to St Eval. We didn't need to be asked twice, we were "in like Flynn" almost before he had settled into the pilot's seat.

It was a lovely summer's day (remember those?), the Annie droned on, and on, and six happy cadets watched the green English countryside drift slowly past for what seemed like hours. Eventually we arrived and landed, our pilot went off for his two-hour meeting, and we tumbled out onto the grass to explore. Feeling very chipper, I said to an "erk" nearby "This is great, I've never been to Cornwall before". "You still haven't, mate, this is Wales!" We were at RAF St Athan, I had mis-heard the Sqd Ldr!

So for the rest of our stay, we indulged in an orgy of aircraft-spotting at what we learned was an important RAF maintenance centre, with Meteors of all marks, Hunters, Javelins, and all manner of other types typical of the 1950's. And yes, there were Canberras there too!! (Poor attempt at staying on topic.) ;)

[Wander00]

Lukeafb1 - you could be right - I was airborne at the time and was diverted to Marham. Certainly the seat landed near the OM, which ISTR was also near the sports field.

[Lukeafb1]

Wander00,

You were also presumably at Watton when on an asymetric approach, a B6 hit the side of the runway and two of the three crew perished. I knew the pilot well, but can't recall his name at this distance in time.

[Wander00]

Just before I got there, April/May 66 I think. ISTR AEO was Ken Topaz who ejected outside the seat envelope, and was shot across the airfield. About a year later he walked out of RAFH Ely. Sadly the other two crew died. RIP

I wonder what the casualty rate for "real" v "practice" assymetric was on the Canberra.

[Lukeafb1]

I remember Ken Topaz's ejection (although I didn't know him). He came out sideways and as you said, shot across the grass. His seat, with him still in it, finished in an upright position some distance from the runway. Nothing deployed (drogue, chute etc.).

I was told many years ago, that practice asymetrics accounted for more accidents than real ones. And yet strangely, little was, to my knowledge, discussed about it in crew rooms. But I seem to remember that a Pprune topic a few years ago discussed the problem in quite some detail and figures were bandied about.

[longer ron]

Wanderoo...I wonder what the casualty rate for "real" v "practice" assymetric was on the Canberra.

There probably were not many 'real' assymetric landing accidents,but as we know unfortunately there were many practice accidents.

There was a spectacular series of pics taken at Marham in 1978 when WJ753 cartwheeled onto the threshold with a crewmember hanging out the door (I believe...have not seen them for years)
They were returning from cyprus with 2 crews on board (as opposed to 2 crew !) with one crew mwmber sitting on rumble seat -and ISTR that after a run and break they were a little hot on finals and closed the throttles but then I think got a little low/slow and on opening the throttles rapidly got assymetric spool up which rolled the wingtip into ground contact...I cannot find a link to the photos but they were astounding :eek:

[Lukeafb1]

Longer Ron,

Did any crew get out?

[longer ron]

From UK serials...


19/06/1978 WJ753 L Canberra B2 100 Sqn During an overshoot at Marham, Norfolk the pilot allowed the engine rpm to drop below the recommended rpm levels. The engines spooled up unevenly during the subsequent throttle up causing a severe asymmetric condition resulting in near vertical bank with the port wingtip striking the ground to the left of the runway. During the ensuing cartwheel, the cockpit section was removed from the fuselage, breaking between the pilot and navigator's seats. The pilot suffered serious leg injuries but the two rear crew were miraculously relatively unscathed

Does not mention rumble seat occupant,perhaps somebody on here could confirm.

Not long before this accident I used to work at the Canberra OCU line which was pretty close to this accident scene !

[longer ron]

This is from the ejectionsite...

There are some photo links as well :(

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ejectionsite.com%2Fnochute.htm&ei=woedTu-aB8TNhAf6ndT9CA&usg=AFQjCNFCpH6Qhy1e6TVfM030hsNk-IutSw


Once we had settled down onto the radar approach I busied myself with my pre-landing checks, making sure that all my equipment was shut down correctly, this procedure which also entailed my tightening my harness for landing usually took about a couple of minutes.

I heard the radar controller announce "you are one mile from touch down, look ahead and land" this was standard patter. At this point the navigator who was sitting close by on my left drew my attention to the air speed indicator which was reading 85 knots and falling rapidly (at this weight we should have been doing about 110 knots. Nothing was said because at the same time the pilot applied full power to both engines very rapidly, I was looking forward and saw the RPM gauges winding up, but the starboard engine (which had been set to zero thrust for the asymmetric practice) must have flamed out as the RPM unwound. The aircraft, which was very low by this time, rolled very rapidly to starboard and then flicked back to port, the port wingtip struck the ground as the aircraft rolled almost vertical, cartwheeled and destroyed itself just to the left of the main runway.

Between the time that the wingtip hit and the nose of the Canberra struck the ground, both the navigator and I ejected (again not a word was said!) As the ejector seats in the rear of the Canberra are side by side the seats are angled slightly to ensure that the seats separate as they leave the aircraft. The navigator being on the port side effectively ejected into the ground and died shortly after. Myself, being on the starboard had a degree of upward motion and separated from the seat (at what height no one knows but speculation is about 20 feet) Although not fully conscious due to the acceleration of the seat, I was immediately fully aware as I hit the ground. It would appear that I landed on my feet with absolutely no forward motion whatsoever as I was able to stop myself toppling with just one hand on the ground on which I now found myself sitting, or rather on my still fully packed parachute.

The precise time of impact was 10:44 as the first thing I did was look at my watch, seems strange but it seemed important at the time.

The first person on the scene was my Squadron Commander who appeared out of the smoke, he paused for a moment and then ran past me, I didn't realise that the Navigator was just behind me and obviously looking a lot worse than I did. The next person was the Station Dentist, who had been driving around the peri track, he appeared on the scene waving a knife with which, despite my protestations about the destruction of government property,he proceeded to use to cut me out of my harness. "I've been carrying this thing for years," he said, "and am determined to use it now!" As you can see from the cut cords on the parachute he did a good job.

I suppose I must have been in shock,but at no time did I feel any pain and the worst part of the incident was the ride in a rather bumpy ambulance to the R.A.F.Hospital at Ely,it seemed to take an awfully long time.

The pilot had stayed with the aircraft and was killed instantly in the wreck.

I sustained two broken ankles, a broken right hip joint,

[India Four Two]

I was in Hanoi over the weekend and I took the opportunity to re-visit the Air Force museum after a gap of many years. I'll post my pictures in the museums thread once I've edited them, but I thought Canberra fans might like this picture and the caption.

http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c309/india42/B57-1.png

There's not much excuse for thinking it is on a carrier, but unless you've seen a cartridge start before, it is quite reasonable to assume it is on fire!

Did RAF Canberras do simultaneous starts? It is such a long time since I've seen one that I cannot remember.

[BSD]

Canberra story;

A friend recently showed me her Dad's logbook from his time as an RAF navigator. He had done a tour on Canberra's which included an exchange with the RAAF.

One flight somewhere remote, but I can't recall the exact location has a comment in the remarks column "hatch blew out and lost at altitude."

The following flight says in the remarks column "sent to retrace route and look for missing hatch"

Must have been a shock losing the hatch, which I assume was the entry door on the right side, but a boss with a sense of pragmatism, nay even humor? i.e. You lost it, you find it!

Modern day boss equivalent; 1. Suspension until inquiry. 2 Fill out health and safety risk assessment form. 3. Fill out environmental impact statement as a result of said lost hatch. 4. Fill out countless requisition forms for new hatch. 5. Attend hatch loss training course as refresher training. 6. Fill out and collect witness statements etc. 7. Subject crew to hatch closing and operating procedure check. 8. Grudgingly release crew to return to service after several months.

I think I've just finally achieved cynical, boring old fart status with this post, but hey, I do miss the simpler life.

Meanwhile, back to Canberras. They were beautiful weren't they?


Cheers all,

BSD.

[pr00ne]

Beautiful? The Canberra?

Asymmetric deathtrap more like!

To my generation of aspiring aspiring hole in the sky punchers it was THE posting you did not want after Valley. We hankered after the shiny new Phantoms, Buccaneers or Harriers. The odd weirdo wanted Lightnings, but who wants to spend 20 minutes with your face glued to a rubber visor for a living? No, we wanted the new breed, anything but that jet engined Blenheim that was amazingly still in service as a front line bomber facing Mig 19's, 21's, SAM 2's and numerous other nasties. That would have been like Battles facing ME109's and Flak 88's all over again. ANYTHING but the V Force of course...

[teeteringhead]

On the subject of design, why were the engines so far apart? ... was it not also because at some stage of design or development a turbo-prop version was considered?

Or is that just an urban myth??? Or was it just the Meteor???? [see below]

http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d144/chrismcd3/TMeteorbw.jpg

[Fake Sealion]

I had a pax flight in a Canberra from St Mawgan whilst on my Pilots OT course at BRNC Dartmouth (or was it later whilst holding between courses?) anyway it was 1977 or 1978

It was one of the target towing variety and I was seated on the lower starboard side of the aircraft without a proper window- think there was Pilot plus one plus me.

Despite a rather limited view of the world it was an enjoyable flight and I feel privileged to have flown in such a classic.

What exact version of the Canberra was this? Recall it had yellow/black stripes painted under the wings.

[Fake Sealion]

Whilst Googling the still images of a Canberra incident mentioned in a post above from longer ron I came across a grainy clip of what is claimed to be a RAF Canberra crashing after take off following "catastrophic" loss of power. There appears to be no attempts to eject before impact.

BUT..I wonder if it was some sort of unmanned experimental flight-this somehow rings a bell to me???

Its on Liveleak.com - search Canberra.

[Jig Peter]

@ Pr00ne

I sympathise with your feelings about your choices for postings after training - by that time it had clearly been "relegated"after a much longer career than anyone could have thought of back in 1952 when it came into service (I'm not being patronising, you understand).
You at least had some interesting possibilities before you, which hardly existed "way back when" after the TSR2 fiasco - Tim McClellan among others has much to say on this, but what even he (ISTR) didn't mention that the idea of having all the magic Kit for all its intended roles fully singing and dancing from EIS was another factor in the failure of the "Canberra replacement" programme.
The Canberra actually "grew" into its various roles over a longish period as its potential versatility was realised (I know that the PR3 was almost contemporary with the B2).
I agree that by the '70s, it was quite likely to suffer a "Batlle -or Blenheim - vs Me 109s et al" if things got really hot, but that wasn't the fault of the aircraft, rather the impractical start its intended successor had, before the almost incredible MOD/Industry/politicos/Navy tangle set to work.
I hope you got your preferred choice - lots of people a few years earlier didn't have that luck! (and preferred to (re)join the civilian world than continue being ****ed rigid from a*****les to breakfast time. :ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

[wub]

I had a pax flight in a Canberra from St Mawgan whilst on my Pilots OT course at BRNC Dartmouth (or was it later whilst holding between courses?) anyway it was 1977 or 1978

It was one of the target towing variety and I was seated on the lower starboard side of the aircraft without a proper window- think there was Pilot plus one plus me.

Despite a rather limited view of the world it was an enjoyable flight and I feel privileged to have flown in such a classic.

What exact version of the Canberra was this? Recall it had yellow/black stripes painted under the wings.

That would have been a TT18 operated by 7 Squadron. I had a trip with them too and was able to get out of my seat next to the nav and go and lie in the nose and stand next to the pilot.

http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h269/wub_01/canb.jpg

[Fareastdriver]

Or was it just the Meteor????

IIRC those were the original Trent engines.

[wub]

Whilst Googling the still images of a Canberra incident mentioned in a post above from longer ron I came across a grainy clip of what is claimed to be a RAF Canberra crashing after take off following "catastrophic" loss of power. There appears to be no attempts to eject before impact.

BUT..I wonder if it was some sort of unmanned experimental flight-this somehow rings a bell to me???

It was indeed unmanned, it was a drone at Woomera in Australia

[Get me some traffic]

Don't forget that the Tornado was originally the MRCA. (Multi role combat aircraft). It really stood for Must Refurbish Canberra Again! It could give the Tornado a run for its money, look at the performance of the PR9. Queen of the skies.

[pr00ne]

Get me some traffic,


The Canberra could give the Tornado a run for it's money?

Perhaps the most ridiculous statement I have ever seen on this site, and THAT is saying something!

Mike Ramsden in the Straight and Level page in Flight was the originator of the Must Refurbish Canberra Again joke, along with Mother Rileys Cardboard Aeroplane.

No radar, no ejection seat for the nav, no gunsight, no defensive aids and slow. To think that deathtrap was in front line service in RAFG in 1972!

It was a disgrace in my F4 days when we took over from them, to compare it to the Tornado is just bizarre!

[Jig Peter]

@ Pr00ne

Canberra radar - The first Canberra version, the B.1, was supposed to have a version of H2S radar which never materialised (shades of things to come !). I think that only the first prototype had the B.1's "solid" nose and was very quickly followed by the B.2 with the glazed nose for the Nav/observer to do his bomb-aiming stuff, which was kept for most subsequent Marks.
Professor R.V. Jones, writing about the "Secret War", relates how H2S emissions from the WW2 Bomber Force were by the German defences to locate incoming raids, perhaps one (other ?) reason for dropping it from the Canberra ...

Navs' ejection seats - Both navigators had ejection seats.

War load - from conventional high-explosive to nuclear bombs, and later, 20 mm cannon, SNEB rocket packs (SFOM fixed cross sight for the pilot) to the AS30 guided weapon (steered by Nav/Obs) which was being intorduced as the Indonesian Confrontation of the mid to late 60s ended.
Incidentally I was surprised when I flew the B15 that the UK had, even then, to go to France for those weapons.
A true multi-role Combat aircraft nevertheless. As far as the PR versions go, I suspect that the PR9's operating ceiling was far superior to the Tornado's.

Yes, it should have been replaced many years before it was retired, but that's another story.

PS. While the figures for safety speed may look horrendous, remember that it was reached surprisingly quickly, even in the lower-powered versions, the post-take-off "pucker factor" time was correspondingly short. I don't know how that compared with say, the Mosquito, deH Hornet or Beaufighter, Mitchell, or Boston, not to talk of those earlier WW2 piston twins, the Blenheim or Blackburn Botha - I once had a piece of perspex glazing from one of them which crashed soon after take-off on Blackpool sands, near where I was at school.

[Krystal n chips]

" To think that deathtrap was in front line service in RAFG in 1972!"

Take it you approved of their use as "decoys",.. all lined up nicely..... and for BDR training then ?.....;)

[pr00ne]

Juliet Papa,

Indeed the B1 was intended as a radar equipped blind bomber. At least if it HAD turned out that way it would have made some sense.

As far as bang seats go, I was referring to the B(I)8, the interdictor-bomber that equipped the RAFG strike squadrons up until 1972. They most certainly did NOT have a bang seat for the sole nav. 270 knots at 250 ft and 360 knots on the IP to target run, lunacy with no bang seat!

I had forgotten about the French SFOM sight, didn't work at night is that right? But, as the RAFG squadrons really were only nuclear strike committed I don't suppose that really mattered.

Still disagree about it being a true multi-role combat aircraft. Like the Blenheim it was around in sufficient numbers to be used in a multiplicity of largely second line roles for which it was not designed, and like the Blenheim it would have been criminal to send it out against the opposition of the time. I faced roughly the same threats in the F4, if they worried me how on earth must the B(I)8 crews have felt?

Never really came across any NEAF Strike wing bods, I suppose you must have been a little better of than the RAFG mob?


Krystal n chips,


That was all they were good for.

[Jig Peter]

@ Pr00ne
during my time in FEAF, our task was confronting the Indonesians in Sumatra and North Borneo and also secondarily being sufficiently nuke-proficient if the Big Northern Power needed a spot of deterring; we didn't try to compete with "other theatres" - with all the different attack profiles that kept us busy maintaining proficiency.
The SFOM fixed ring sight was for the SNEB rockets and would have been very effective if the "opposition" tried to invade by day with hordes of small boats, for example, or against oil installations which were in our target study briefs. The Indonesians' one attempt at a night (?) airborne incursion using one of their C-130s was a complete failure, but the C-inC did have the rare pleasure (for a very senior officer) of watching 20 Sqn Hunters do their stuff very effectively (using the 60-lb rockets as used by Tempests and Beaufighters in the "events" of 20 years before, as well as their mighty Aden guns).
BTW, one result of "Confronation" was that, for the first time, most if not all of North Borneo was accurately mapped by PR7s - previous surveys along the hard-to-reach mountain areas had been done by oil companies using different base-lines, and the position of, e.g. a mountain, could be on "our" side for each of the opposing forces the Gurkhas loved that !

Incidentally, our attack speed at low level was 450 knots ...

[Jig Peter]

Early generation jets on both sides of the Channel had their engines at about half span, like the Meteor, Me 262 and the Arado bomber whose type number slips my memory. Probably due to good structural theory and practice as it was known at the time.
I seem to remember that among the early drafts of what became the Canberra, Mr. Petter investigated "close-in" engines but finally went for the mid-span layout.

[Fareastdriver]

You can add the B45 to that and the B47 and B52 goes without sayiing.

[kluge]

That elegant beast the Short Sperrin too.

2 engines stacked on each side !

[Fareastdriver]

Rebuilt the port wing as the P1.

[Ogre]

To digress slightly, talk of ejections seats reminded me of one story from the TSR 2 exhibit at RAF Cosford. Allegedly there was a spare ejection seat on the servicing stand which stood beside the aircraft. Little kiddies could have their picture taken sitting in the seat if they asked nicely, although that activity was curtailed for a short period when it was discovered that the seat was fitted with live catridges and rocket pack.....

[Lukeafb1]

Ogre,

For all sorts of reasons (checks before de-commissioning etc., etc.), that seems highly unlikely! But if it is true, someone deserves a rocket (no pun intended!)

[Tinribs]

Much has been made for many years of the seeming gap between rotate and safety speeds

If we remember that safety speed is defined by full power and the Canberra doesnm't need anything like that to fly, especially the later models, one could readily create a new lower safety speed by throttling back on the live engine. Of course you have to make up your mind up prior to the event this is what you were going to do and don't waste time deciding which engine had failed throttle them both back

I did several Canberra tours including 85, 100, 360, TP at the MU, 39 and RAE Bedford. Throughout those years we lost about a crew each year to emergency handling problems. Sometimes on the approach single engine. I had one myself at Leconfield, my nav was Laurie Davies, we were lucky but Laurie died in a similar accident out of Wyton.

His accident was photographed by a git called Geof Garratt and the photographs published twice of Lauries body on fire in a gutter. We were not pleased

On the PR9 and the SC 9 we launched with 85% RPM, about half thrust, got the gear up and then put the rest of the power on as we passed safety speed

[scorpion63]

WK163 and before that XH568 have been flown very successfully on the airshow circuit since 1995 with no problems what so ever, in fact over that period we lost only 3 shows to unserviceability and with an average of 32 shows per annum that's not a bad record for a fifty year old aeroplane.
Regarding speeds we operate at 130 knots unstick and 175 knots safety speed, at light weight the aircraft will accelerate to 175 from 130 with very little power applied, slowing it down is the problem!!
Biggest problem on take off is EMBS and stop speed, at higher weights on a short runway the choices between running out of runway or burning the brakes out if things go wrong can be interesting. Basic weight of WK163 is 24,500 so with 8000lbs of fuel, say 32500lbs, take off weight on a flat dry runway of 8000ft/+15c/ 1013MB with no wind gives an EMBS of 130kts and a stop speed of about 148kts. However if weight is increased to 45,000lbs and the runway reduced to 6000ft in the same conditions EMBS becomes 108kts and stop is 118kts, so the gap between being able to stop and being able to get airborne is a lot bigger.